Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MRS. WESTON (CONVICTION)

Mr. CLARRY: I beg to present a Petition, signed by 14,520 residents of Newport (Mon.), praying for the release of Mrs. Weston, of Newport (Mon.), who at the last Monmouthshire Assizes was sentenced to four months' imprisonment in the Second Division.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BATH CORPORATION BILL.

As amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: May I ask whether an explanation is going to be given as to the necessity for suspending these Standing Orders?

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I understand that the hon. Member does not object, but that he only wishes to obtain information. In the case of a Bill originating in this House at this period of the Session, it is desirable, in order to get through the Private Business, to take two stages in one. I have heard no objection to this Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not see anything in the Bill which justifies the suspension of the Standing Orders. There is nothing urgent which requires the Bill to be passed immediately.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Leicester Fire Brigade Provisional Order Bill,

Salford Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,

Not amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Wemyss and District Water Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DEVONSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE BEST)

Mr. W. BAKER: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a claim for an allowance on behalf of the child of the late Private A. E. Best, No. 240,642, Devonshire Regiment, has been rejected; that Private Best enlisted in 1914 as an A1 man; that he subsequently contracted malaria and was also injured in the head; that his health broke down and that he died from cerebral hæmorrhage; and whether he will take steps to secure the grant of an allowance?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): As the hon. Member has already been informed, an allowance in respect of this child is not admissible under the terms of the Warrant because, as the Ministry were advised, the father's death was not due to his military service. The
decision of the Ministry on this point was upheld by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal who had all the facts before them, and I am not aware of any circumstances which would justify me in reconsidering the decision.

STABILISATION OF PENSIONS.

Mr. BECKETT: asked the Minister of Pensions if he can give any assurance that the proposed stabilisation of war pensions as from October, 1926, will not involve any decrease in the present scale?

Mr. STEPHEN: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions when he will be able to inform the House of the changes involved in his proposed scheme for the stabilisation of pensions?

Major TRYON: The period of stabilisation already announced will maintain existing rates beyond the date referred to. While the position of pensioners is thus safeguarded, the general question of stabilisation will, in due course, be the subject of consideration by the Government.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will be able to consider the question of stabilisation?

Major TRYON: The Government are going to go into this matter, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, there are very grave questions involved before a final decision can be made in a matter so vitally affecting the interests of ex-service men.

Mr. MACKINDER: Would it not be possible at the same time to appoint a Committee to consider the whole question of pensions?

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great fear amongst ex-service men that a reduction of pensions is intended? Cannot he give some very plain statement that that will not be done?

Major TRYON: I am aware of the great fears which have been created for bye-election purposes amongst ex-service men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I am entitled to give a reply to the question put to me. My answer is that I am aware of the anxiety created among ex-service men by a statement that there was a "Tory plot against the pensioners,"
and I am very glad to have been able to relieve their anxiety by telling them that the statement was absolutely untrue.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while they may not be afraid of a Tory plot, they may be afraid of the Tories reducing their pensions?

Major TRYON: I can assure the hon. Member that their position is absolutely safeguarded. This Government is only asking from the Opposition the same consideration which was given to the late Government, namely, reasonable time to settle an exceedingly difficult matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Did not this anxiety arise as a result of the fact that in the forms sent to ex-service men there is a statement that this revision is likely to take place in 1926? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for the deletion of that statement from similar orders sent out, so that the doubt will not be there in future?

Major TRYON: The notice drawing attention to the requirements of the Warrant, which was sent out under the late Government, and up to a few days ago, has been altered in form, but until a final decision has been arrived at it is necessary to explain the position to pensioners.

Mr. MACKINDER: Can I have a reply to my supplementary question? Would it be possible at the same time for the Government to appoint a Committee to investigate the whole question of pensions?

Major TRYON: The Government decision not to appoint a Committee has been intimated to the House.

AWARDS AND INCREASES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many new war pensions have been awarded since 1st November last; and how many existing pensions have been increased since that date?

Major TRYON: During the seven months referred to new awards have been made in 9,566 cases of officers, men, widows and dependants. During the same period 30,000 existing disability awards were increased in assessment.

Mr. CADOGAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman, inform the House how many assessments have been decreased?

Mr. DALTON: Hear, hear!

Major TRYON: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) had better listen to my reply, and then he will appreciate that his fear is not quite fair.

Mr. DALTON: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to applaud a question asked by an hon. Member sitting below the Gangway? May we not ask for some courtesy from the Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not notice anything disorderly.

Major TRYON: I was replying to a very important point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. DALTON: Get on with the job!

Major TYRON: During the period since 1st November last, 30,000 existing disability pensions were increased and 17,000 were reduced.

APPEALS (TIME LIMIT).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received representations from the Deptford Borough Council and other London municipal bodies urging an amendment of the War Pensions Act, 1921, whereby the time limit imposed in the Royal Warrant should be entirely abolished for officers, men, widows and dependants, and giving officers and men the right of appealing to an independent tribunal in cases where further compensation has been refused after a final allowance, and where the claimant is able to produce medical evidence that the disability has re-asserted itself or become worse, whether such representations have yet been considered; and, if so, with what result?

Major TRYON: I have received copies of formal resolutions in the sense suggested which have been passed by the Deptford Borough Council and certain other councils in London, at the instance apparently of the Shoreditch Borough Council. I am taking steps to acquaint the councils concerned with the facts of the position on both the subjects referred to. I would remind the right hon. Mem-
ber that the matters referred to were fully discussed in the Debate of the 26th ultimo on the Vote for my Department.

CLINICS, BULINGA STREET AND BROAD STREET.

Captain HUDSON: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions why disabled men are now being sent for treatment to the clinic at Bulinga Street, Milbank, who previously attended the clinic at Broad Street; and if, owing to the inconvenience which will be caused to the disabled men if the Broad Street clinic is closed, he will try to arrange that it shall be kept open and the cases for treatment divided between the Bulinga Street and Broad Street clinics?

Major TRYON: The number of cases requiring only out-patient treatment is in the natural course diminishing, and in consequence, though every effort is made to meet the convenience of pensioners, the clinic accommodation has necessarily from time to time to be reduced. The Holborn clinic belongs to the British Rèd Cross Society, and they have intimated that they cannot continue the clinic unless the number of patients is increased. With the general decline in the number of cases this is not possible, and consequently the patients have to be diverted to the more permanent clinics of the Ministry—among others that at Bulinga Street, where I may say the facilities for all varieties of treatment and the means of access are particularly good.

ALTERNATIVE PENSION (MRS. PERCIVAL).

Mr. DALTON: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Percival, widow of the late Colonel Percival, on the staff, who was killed in October, 1915; whether, seeing that under the Royal Warrant of 1920 Mrs. Percival became eligible for an alternative pension of £300 a year in lieu of the £216 she is at present receiving, and the Ministry was in full possession of all the details of the deceased colonel's pre-War earnings, any intimation was conveyed to Mrs. Percival that she was entitled to an increased pension; and, if not, will he authorise the issue of an alternative pension, with effect from 2nd July, 1920?

Major TRYON: The special rate of pension termed "Alternative Pension" provided by the Royal Warrants of 1919 and 1920 were expressly made dependent
on the submission of a claim and proof of pre-War earnings by the pensioner. In addition to the widest publicity given in other directions, a leaflet, drawing attention to the provisions of the Warrant in regard to alternative pension, was sent to every officer's widow on the pension list, addressed to them at the addresses given by them to the Paymasters-General for the purpose of all correspondence regarding their pensions. I have no reason to doubt that this information was sent to the widow referred to, and I should have no authority to authorise an exceptional departure from the provisions of the Warrant in favour of this case.

AWARDS REJECTED (WIDOWS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases in which pensions have been refused to the widows of ex-service men; and the number of dependent children thereby affected?

Major TRYON: The total number of cases in which claims have been made by widows under the Warrant is approximately 277,000. Of these, not more than about 27,000 have been rejected as inadmissible. I am not, however, in a position to say in what number of cases the widows concerned had any children dependent upon them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BICYCLES (REAR LAMPS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received representations from the Cyclists' Touring Club and the National Cyclists' Union protesting against the issue of posters by several Chief Constables calling upon pedal-cyclists to carry rear lamps or reflectors on their bicycles; and what reply, if any, he is making to these communications?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I received representations from the Cyclists' Touring Club, but it did not appear that the matter called for any action on my part, and I so informed the club.

Mr. THOMSON: If there is no legal obligation at present to carry these rear
lights, does the Home Secretary consider it suitable that these Chief Constables should send out these orders?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no power to direct Chief Constables, other than the Metropolitan Police, either to send out or to abstain from sending out any documents

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these cyclists without red lights on the road are a very great danger to the public?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I entirely concur that they are a danger to the public and even a greater danger to themselves.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that there shall be some order compelling these people, as a protection to themselves and others, to carry these lights?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would require legislation.

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: May I call attention to the increasing number of these questions which are put down in regard to particular instances in hon. Members' constituencies, and may I call your attention also to the observations which you made some time ago in reference to this practice?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot do more than repeat what I said the other day. These questions should be put as unstarred questions, but the matter lies in the hands of hon. Members, and not in mine

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that this question does not deal with the constituency of the hon. Member who put it?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DISINFECTING STATION, LIVERPOOL.

Colonel DAY: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at the inquest on the late Mr. Meggs, employed at the Government disinfecting station at Love Lane, Liverpool, it was recorded that during his employment hæmorrhage of the nose started at 4.30 p.m., when the director in charge of the station rendered first aid but did not call in any medical assistance; and will he state why medical aid was not sought
when it was apparent that the deceased was bleeding profusely and gradually becoming weaker?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the question is not of national importance, and the answer is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The director of the station reports that on the day in question, Mr. Meggs left the works at 4.30 p.m., which is the usual closing hour, but had proceeded only a short distance when severe bleeding of the nose commenced. Mr. Meggs then returned to the works, where he was attended by the assistant director and the works engineer, who did what they could to stop the bleeding. The director was not called to see Mr. Meggs till about 6 p.m. The question of calling in a doctor was considered, but Mr. Meggs himself was against this, and as he showed no signs of weakness and the bleeding was becoming considerably less severe, it was not thought necessary. About 6.15 the bleeding had practically stopped, and Mr. Meggs was then sent home in a cab in the charge of the works engineer. I see no ground for any criticism of the action of the director and other officers concerned, who did everything in their power to help Mr. Meggs.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

X-RAY PHOTOGRAPHS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 13.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that under the Workmen's Compensation Act proper provision is not made for the use of X-ray photographs; and whether he will take steps to remedy this?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If, as I assume, my hon. Friend is referring to the use of X-ray photographs in connection with the examination of injured workmen by the medical referees, he has been misinformed. Provision is made in the Regulations whereby, in any case of difficulty, the medical referee can obtain an X-ray examination; and X-ray photographs are in fact frequently arranged for by the medical referees. No representation has been made to me as to the need for any further provision.

REFUSAL OF LIGHT WORK.

Mr. J. GUEST: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many workmen who are in receipt of partial compensation only, on the grounds that they are certified as fit for light work, are unemployed owing to the refusal of their previous employer, in whose service they incurred their disability, to find them light or suitable work; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation compelling an employer to provide such work for his own partially disabled men or otherwise to pay such compensation as was due for total disability?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no statistics on the point, but I have no doubt great difficulty is often experienced at the present time by partially recovered workmen in obtaining light employment. So far as I am aware, however, this is due to the prevailing industrial conditions and not to any unwillingness on the part of the employers to assist the workmen. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for the Don Valley Division on the 2nd April last. Provision was made in Section 16 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by which the partially recovered workman, who fails to obtain work as a consequence wholly or mainly of his injury, is entitled to a continuance of his compensation on the scale for total disablement. That, in my view, is as far as one can reasonably go.

Mr. GUEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the deplorable place of many of these men? Is he not also aware that in many places where new men are actually being set on these men are still being refused employment?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as the result of the employers refusing to re-employ men, particularly those who have suffered from the disease known as miners' nystagmus, these men are not only deprived of compensation but of any chance of getting any other work?

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that where there is slackness at any of the collieries these men are the first to go?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Act was originally based on the assumption that light work would be given to them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that the question as to miners' nystagmus arises out of this question. In reply to the other question, I do think that if a miner fails to obtain work, wholly or mainly in consequence of his injury, he is entitled, though he is only partially injured, to a continuance of his compensation when his failure to obtain work is due to temporary disablement.

Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1923 his predecessor said, in reference to the Compensation Act, that these men, when partially unable to work, should have unemployment benefit; and have the Ministry stopped that unemployment benefit?

Mr. POTTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the profits of the insurance companies in this matter are sufficient, not only to cover what is asked in this case, but to pay an increased amount?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF FACTORY INSPECTOR (REPORT).

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 15.
asked the Home Secretary when the Report of the Chief Factory Inspector will be made available for Members of the House?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed that the Report, which has already been presented, will be available by the end of next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE STRIKERS (PAYMENTS).

Mr. HAYES: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now received from the local authorities concerned replies to the Home Office letter respecting payments to police strikers; and, if so, what is the nature of same?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. The local authorities are generally favourable to the recommendation of the Mackenzie Committee that police authorities should be given discretion to apply for the benefit of any dependants of the
men concerned, the whole or part of the rateable deductions made from their pay, and the question of legislation is now being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — VANMEN (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. HAYES: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in many prosecutions of carmen for leaving vans unattended, this is due to employers failing to provide van boys; and whether, in future, such failures will be taken into consideration when applying for process?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Where proceedings are necessary for obstruction, the question is not affected by the presence or absence of a van boy, who, moreover, when present, is usually incapable of moving a motor vehicle, and not always competent to control a horse. In cases where the driver of a horse van is reported for being at such a distance from the vehicle as not to have control over the horse drawing it, if a van boy is present, this fact is taken into consideration before proceedings are instituted.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the circular, which is in existence in the Metropolitan police district, stating that special consideration should be given to carmen during the time that they are at meals, so that a prosecution shall not ensue for leaving their vans unattended to, which would not be the case if they had van boys?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will it be the policy of the Home Secretary to encourage blind alley occupations such as that of van boys?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am certainly not in favour of blind alley occupations.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend that circular to the provincial police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will look at the circular.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXI-CABS (WHISTLE CALLS).

Mr. ERSKINE: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can see his way to sanction the use of an improved whistle
for the purpose of calling taxi-cabs during the daytime, as was the custom before War-time Regulations came into force?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no power to take any action of the nature suggested. Whistling for cabs is forbidden by a bye-law made by the London County Council under the powers of Section 16 of the Local Government Act, 1888; and the question of revoking or amending the bye-law is one for the London County Council.

Mr. ERSKINE: Is not this one of the numerous erroneous acts committed by the London County Council?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not this wasting the time of the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE SEARCH, WATFORD.

Mr. HARRIS: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on the 11th June a number of persons who entered the shop of a newsagent in Lower High Street, Watford, were searched by the police; that a man named A. E. Hatton, who had gone there to buy a paper, though after a search nothing was found on him to indicate that he had any connection with betting, was taken with others to the police station in an open car in full public view, and was detained for some two and a-half hours, losing three hours' work in consequence; and on what authority did the police arrest persons entering a shop offering articles for sale, on the suspicion that some person or persons may be using the place for illegal purposes?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made inquiry of the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire and am informed that the police acted under the authority of a justice's warrant to search and arrest, which was obtained on evidence sufficient to afford ground for suspicion.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that a lot of people went in to buy a newspaper, including a vanman in charge of a van, who was taken from his work, and although no charge was made against him, was detained for two or three hours, and does he realise that this action might entail the arrest of himself if he went into the shop to buy something?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will run my own risk. I would like the hon. Member to realise that the Home Secretary is not responsible for the action of the Chief Constable in this matter. I have no power.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is a very highhanded action to enter a shop in broad daylight and seize people who come in to buy a newspaper, against whom there is no evidence whatever, and against whom no evidence has been produced even up to the present?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no power in the matter. Information was laid before a justice, who granted a search warrant in the ordinary way. The search warrant was executed by the, constable, over whom I have no power.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATTEOTTI MEMORIAL MEETING.

Colonel DAY: 21.
asked the Home Secretary why the Metropolitan Police interfered with the holding of a Matteotti memorial meeting by the Friends of Italian Freedom at the St. James's Hall, Greek Street, on 14th June?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Metropolitan Police did not in any way interfere with the holding of this meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSEBREAKING (CONVICTIONS)

Mr. BECKETT: 22.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of convictions for housebreaking during the past 10 years in Gateshead, Leeds, Old-ham, Wigan, Glasgow, Shoreditch, Sheffield, Rotherham, and Sunderland?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Figures relating to the number of cases of burglary and housebreaking reported to the different county and borough police forces are published yearly in the Judicial Statistics, but I have no information as to the number of persons convicted of these offences in the boroughs mentioned.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in the towns mentioned the police are below strength?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. THURTLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why Shoreditch is singled out for this doubtful distinction?

Oral Answers to Questions — BORSTAL SYSTEM.

Mr. CADOGAN: 23.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a statement was made by the governor of the gaol, in the course of a recent trial at the Gloucestershire Assizes, to the effect that the Prison Commissioners did not wish boys to be sent to Borstal unless they had previously been sent to prison; and whether this statement represents accurately the views of the Prison Commissioners?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: The governor's brief remarks conveyed a wrong impression. He was alluding to the fact that it is unusual for first offenders to be sent to Borstal. It is not the case that the Prison Commissioners do not wish lads to be sent to Borstal unless they have previously been in prison. About half the lads now in Borstal institutions have not been in prison, but have either been fined or placed on probation for their previous offences.

Mr. CADOGAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the officials of his Department what are the principles upon which the Borstal system is founded?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the information is clearly in the minds of the officials of my Department, but sometimes is not so clearly in the minds of those who sentence boys.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL (PROBATION OFFICERS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the provisions made in the Criminal Justice Bill for the appointment of probation officers, any approximate scale of salary has been settled by his Department as suitable to the post; and whether it is suggested that there should be relative uniformity of payment in this respect?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Criminal Justice Bill will give power to the Secretary of State to make rules for fixing the scales of salary to be paid to probation officers. In framing these rules the scales of salary recommended by the Departmental Committee of 1922, which have already been adopted in London and in some other places, will be taken as a basis. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of this Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOLLEN AND WORSTED REGULATIONS, 1925.

Captain MACMILLAN: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether the maximum weights fixed in the Schedule of the Woollen and Worsted Regulations (Lifting of Heavy Weights), 1925, and especially the maximum to be lifted by women and young persons, were arrived at after full medical inquiries; and, if not, on what grounds, physiological or experimental, these were arrived at by his Department?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. The draft Regulations have been proposed at the request of the National Wool and Allied Textile Industrial Council, as the result of an inquiry by a, special Committee of the Council on which both the employers' and workers' sides were represented. This Committee made a careful and extensive investigation, in the course of which they visited a number of works and inquired into the existing methods and practice. It is important to observe that the object of the Regulations is to fix maximum weights which are not to be exceeded.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (POLICE).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 26.
asked the Home Secretary in view of the fact that during prolonged sittings of the House many of the police constables employed within its precincts are frequently on duty for 16 hours at a stretch, if he will consider whether there is any way by which these prolonged spells of duty can be obviated?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I find that on two occasions only during the present Session have police performed duty for 16 hours or more, the number of men
concerned being 12 and 26, respectively. When they are kept late arrangements are made to relieve them from their posts for short periods in addition to the interval which they are normally allowed for refreshment. Men who are not conversant with the duties cannot be used as reliefs, and as late sittings are so uncertain the keeping of a number of men on reserve duty on the chance of their being required would not be justified.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that long spells of Parliamentary duty have now been obviated in the case of members of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, will he see that a similar concession is given to the constables, who are not attached to his party?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of members of my party who are excused attendance is so relevantly unimportant, that I do not think so slight a concession would be of any value to the police force.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, unlike the Members of this House, a constable receives overtime?

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the constables would not appreciate a concession in the way of allowing them, when the House is not sitting, to take time off in a continuous period and to be absent from their duties?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman used the expression that members of some party were "excused attendance." Is it not a fact that, according to the Rules of the House, though they are not often enforced, leave of absence can be granted only by the House, and not by any Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: That remark was made by one of the questioners. I am afraid that that old Rule has gone into disuse.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the unfair posi-
tion in which some of the taxpayers in London are placed, owing to the present unsatisfactory Regulations governing the hours at which licensed premises in some parts of London have to be closed; and whether he will take steps to have the existing rules altered, in order that, without increasing the hours for trading, there may be a universal hour in London at which licensed premises are closed, both on Sundays and weekdays?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Uniformity of permitted hours could be secured only by fresh legislation, of which I can hold out no prospect at present.

Sir F. HALL: Does my right hon. Friend think it reasonable that an Englishman at 9 o'clock on a Sunday evening, when it is not yet dark, if he goes out for a walk, is not allowed to go into a licensed house on one side of the road but is allowed to do so on the other side of the road?

Viscountess ASTOR: rose—

Sir F. HALL: Can we have the Minister's answer before we have the Noble Lady's text?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All I can say is that Parliament is responsible for the Act that was passed, and that Act cannot be altered without the authority of Parliament.

Sir F. HALL: Do you not think that an alteration should be made?

Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be far better for Englishmen if they drank nothing on the Sabbath?

Sir F. HALL: May I ask my right hon. Friend, as representing the Government, whether he thinks that the policy suggested by the Noble Lady would bring in the revenue needed for carrying on the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

COMMUNISTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that all possible precautions are now being taken to prevent the entrance into this country of known alien Communists?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am satisfied that the admission of aliens to this
country is carefully controlled and that all possible precautions are taken to exclude any who appear likely to engage in activities prejudicial to the national interests.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman complete the good work which has already been carried out in this regard with the wholesale approval of the country?

Mr. SPEAKER: Question Time is not the time for these general observations.

DOMESTIC SERVANTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 80.
asked the Minister of Labour how many permits were issued in 1924 for the immigration of alien domestic servants; and by what factors he is guided in the consideration of applications?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Permits in respect of 1,230 alien domestic servants were issued in 1924. In considering these applications I am guided, among other considerations, by the evidence available in each case as to the efforts made by the employer to find suitable labour in this country and whether the wages to be paid to the aliens are at least equivalent to those normally received by British subjects for similar work.

WAITERS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 81.
asked the Minister of Labour how many permits he has issued in the last six months for the immigration of alien waiters; and on what grounds he has assented to the applications?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I point out that in the first part of this question —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] On a point of Order. May I point out that the first part of this question only requires one figure as an answer? May I have that?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, I will give that figure to the hon. Member. It is 84. As
to the second part of the question the answer will be found fully set out in the answer which I propose to circulate.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Arising out of the answer to that portion of the question, were any part of these 84 admitted in order to serve the British Empire Exhibition?

Mr. BETTERTON: The answer to that is given in the second part of the answer to which I have referred. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!"]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Take us into your confidence!

Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly read it if the hon. Member wishes it to be read. [HON. MEMBERS: "Circulate it!"]

Following is the reply:

From the 1st January last to date 84 permits have been issued in respect of alien waiters in the following circumstances:


On condition that facilities were provided for an equal number of British subjects to obtain Continental experience. (Short period permits—generally for six months)
33


Under an agreement with the Swiss Government whereby similar opportunities are provided for British subjects in Swiss hotels. (All permits for maximum period of 12 months)
5


To replace other alien waiters who had returned to the Continent
4


To augment the supply of trained labour for the Empire Exhibition, Wembley, on condition that seven waiters were obtained in this country for each additional waiter from abroad. (Permits for six months only)
40


Specially trained men as "head waiters" for a new French restaurant, the other members of the staff of waiters being found in this country
2


Total
84

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at the Central Station Hotel and the Gleneagles Hotel, both owned by the
London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, British waiters, some of them ex-service men, are being dismissed and their places filled by foreign waiters, and that there are over 150 British male waiters idle in Glasgow; and whether he can state what, if any, action he will take?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned, but I will have inquiries made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

WEST HAM (SCHOOL PREMISES).

Mr. GROVES: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will investigate the reports of his inspectors upon the visits made on 25th May to the West Ham County Borough elementary schools; whether he will specially consider the Report referring to the Abbey school, where, it is stated, physical training is carried out on the right lines, though much hampered by the absence of a hall and the character of the playground; whether he is aware that West Ham is a very overcrowded area, offering no facilities for extension of school premises; and whether he is prepared to make special inquiries and recommendations on behalf of this area?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): My attention has been called to the reports in question. I am afraid that similar conditions exist in the central areas of many cities. It is for the local authorities, in the first instance, to consider schemes for the improvement of their schools, and though I am quite aware how difficult it is to find a remedy, an authority like West Ham will not solve its difficulties by transferring its responsibilities in the matter to Whitehall.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

Mr. HARRIS: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether up-to-date information is available as to the present condition of technical education and the relations between the authorities responsible for technical education and the leaders of industry and commerce in France, Germany, and other industrial countries; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have such information, as far as possible made accessible to the public?

Lord E. PERCY: The Board have some general information with regard to the present condition of technical education abroad and the co-operation of industry and commerce with the authorities concerned with it, but they have few detailed particulars as to the precise arrangements made in particular cases. I am endeavouring to obtain further information relating to the arrangements made in regard to particular branches of technical education, and when I obtain it I will consider the question of publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNITY (INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT).

Colonel DAY: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the most important need in connection with maternity cases is for institutional treatment, especially for those with unsuitable home surroundings, and in many cases the need of specialist services, he will take such steps as will encourage local authorities to make additional provision for the care and welfare of mothers both during and after childbirth?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Stratford on the 20th May. I will send him a copy of the circular to which I drew attention in that reply.

Colonel DAY: rose.—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member really takes an undue amount of time. The hon. and gallant Member never asks a question without putting a supplementary.

Colonel DAY: But I had the same answer from the Minister yesterday.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to consider his fellow-Members.

Mr. GROVES: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the Report of the chief medical adviser for his Department for 1924, in which it is stated that excessive rates of maternal mortality are found in the aggregate in most rural areas, such as Breconshire, Westmorland, Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire, and in highly industrial areas engaged in textile manufacture and coal
mining, and especially in such county boroughs as Halifax, Blackpool, Rochdale, Huddersfield, Swansea, Bradford, Bury, Oldham, Dewsbury and Blackburn; and whether he proposes any special measures to afford the people of these areas additional medical or institutional treatment in order to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the authorities of most of the areas mentioned are already taking steps, as a result of the issue of the circular to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 20th May, to provide additional facilities for the ante-natal examination and institutional treatment of pregnant women, and the medical officers of my Department pay special

The following figures show the position on the 29th May—the latest date for which the information is available:—


1. Total number of new Pensions granted in consequence of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924
53,896


2. Summary of the various increases in existing Pensions—

Previous Rate of Pension.
Number of Pensions increased.




To 2s. rate.
To 4s. rate.
To 6s. rate.
To 8s. rate.
To 10s. rate.
Total.


s.
d.








1
0
107
71
33
26
1,309
1,546


2
0
—
382
178
123
5,081
5,764


3
0
—
—
—
—
3
3


4
0
—
—
468
273
10,879
11,620


5
0
—
—
3
2
12
17


6
0
—
—
—
519
14,923
15,442


8
0
—
—
—
—
23,360
23,360


Totals
107
453
682
943
55,567
57,752

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. CLARRY: 35.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount paid on account of Poor Law relief attributable directly to unemployment during the quarter ended 31st March, 1925?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total amount of domiciliary Poor Law relief given in money and kind in England and Wales during the 13 weeks ended the 28th March, 1925, to persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation and the wives and dependent children of those persons was £1,194,475.

attention to these points on the occasion of their visits to these areas.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. GROVES: 33.
asked the Minister of Health if he can present statistics to the House showing the total number of fresh claims to pensions granted and a summary of the various increases of pensions granted under the application of the 1924 amendment to the Old Age Pension Act?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea how much of that sum has been transferred to his Ministry from the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE AND OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. MACKINDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the gravity of the unemployment situation, the Government will raise the school-leaving age and bring into immediate operation
old age pensions at 65 on a scale sufficient to enable elderly persons to subsist without seeking employment?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The cost of these proposals would be prohibitive. With regard, however, to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Pensions Bill now before the House.

Mr. MACKINDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is much better to reduce unemployment, even though the cost may be great?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what would be the estimated cost of putting into operation the proposal in the first part of the question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should want notice of that question, I have a great many figures connected with it. In regard to the other supplementary question, what the hon. Member desires is an admirable thing, but I am afraid the cost is prohibitive, and when I use the word prohibitive I mean it is so great that the charges which would be levied on the country and through the country on industry would do more harm than good.

Mr. MACKINDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that raising the school age would do good to the physique of our people in the future?

Viscountess ASTOR: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is clearly a matter for Debate, and not one which should be raised at Question Time.

PROPOSED NATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. ERSKINE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing urgency of the unemployment question, he will consider the desirability of summoning a national conference, representative of all sections of the people, with the object of endeavouring to arrive at some measure of agreement as to any possible remedy for a state of affairs which is causing anxiety in the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 15th June in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Gates-head (Mr. Beckett).

Mr. ERSKINE: Is it not the fact that there is only one real known remedy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Socialism!"]

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Colonel GRETTON: 52.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to explain, to this House what steps the Government intend to take to assist declining British industries and to diminish the numbers of the unemployed?

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister what action the Government proposes to take to reduce unemployment in this country in the manner indicated in the recent Report of the East African Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: The policy of the Government will be stated in the Debate on the Motion of Censure on the Paper standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

BENEFIT (CONVICTIONS FOR FRAUD).

Sir F. HALL: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of persons who have become ineligible for any further unemployment pay in consequence of their having been convicted of fraud in connection with the unemployment benefit during the years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?

Mr. BETTERTON: There is no provision in the Unemployment Insurance Acts disqualifying a person for unemployment benefit on the specific ground that he has previously been convicted of fraud in connection therewith. Such a conviction can, therefore, be taken into account only in so far as it may have a bearing on the question whether the conditions expressly laid down by the Acts are fulfilled. I have no figures showing whether any persons convicted of fraud have, in fact, drawn benefit subsequently.

Sir F. HALL: Is it to be understood that, no matter how many times a man is convicted of fraud in obtaining unemployment benefit, nevertheless he can continue after a certain period to draw more? I am asking the hon. Gentleman if that is to be understood to be the law.

Mr. BETTERTON: No. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Minister of Labour has to
give effect to the statutory requirements set out in the Act. This is one. Whatever the views of the Minister may be one way or another, he cannot take them into consideration.

MINERS.

Mr. G. HALL: 76.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners unem-

NUMBERS OF PERSONS in the Coal Mining Industry registered as Unemployed in the Administrative Areas of the Ministry of Labour.


End of Month.
South Eastern.
South Western,
Mid-lands.
North Eastern.
North Western,
Scotland.
Wales.
Great Britain.


1924.










End of June
…
205
2,787
13,949
13,024
6,245
10,705
12,813
59,728


July
…
844
2,511
13,776
29,568
8,438
18,157
12,968
86,262


August
…
935
4,566
11,518
34,968
10,172
15,069
19,923
97,151


September
…
833
2,455
7,179
43,207
10,073
13,409
25,883
103,039


October
…
832
3,938
8,022
46,468
8,528
13,226
48,980
129,994


November
…
1,437
1,579
8,754
36,709
10,836
14,034
40,200
113,549


December
…
635
1,568
8,824
32,753
10,927
11,722
32,715
99,144


1925.










End of January
…
544
1,866
7,500
31,061
9,812
14,113
35,165
100,061


February
…
400
1,318
7,851
42,774
7,617
24,810
46,145
130,915


March
…
374
1,042
8,122
61,549
7,886
26,319
42,968
148,260


April
…
290
1,822
10,587
51,140
12,498
30,798
38,889
146,024


May
…
263
2,978
28,285
65,049
20,730
35,478
46,371
199,154


A considerable proportion of those included in these figures were persons who, though not actually at work on the date of the Return, were intermittently working short-time.

DOMESTIC SERVICE, GOVAN.

Mr. MACLEAN: 84.
asked the Minister of Labour whither he is aware that the Govan Employment Exchange are telling unemployed girls who have no experience of domestic service to go round the residential districts in Dumbreck and Moss Park asking for daily employment, and are refusing benefit to those who refuse; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiry made, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not this the condition that is being sent round by circular by the Exchanges from the Department of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. BETTERTON: I should not like to accept that without going further into it. I must look at the precise form of it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that there are thousands of

ployed in South Wales and other coalfields, respectively, during each month from June, 1924, to June, 1925?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply, and as the answer necessarily involves a number of figures, I will, with hon. Members' permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

houses where girls could learn to do this work?

Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking if this instruction has been sent out from the Ministry of Labour.

Sir J. NALL: A very good one too!

Mr. MACLEAN: Yes, if you were going out with it! Surely the hon. Gentleman ought to know if this instruction has been issued from his own Department as a general order?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman has asked me with regard to a specific case. I am inquiring into that case, and I will inform, him as to the result. In regard to the circular in question, I do not carry the full details in my head.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have asked the hon. Gentleman if this general instruction has been issued from his office. He ought to know that or whether it is merely a local instruction issued by a local manager.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had bettor put that question down to make it clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DIRECT LABOUR.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Health what was the average cost of the houses built under the 1923 Housing Act by means of direct labour; and, if he cannot give these particulars to-day, how soon will he be in a position to do so?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Reliable figures as to the cost of direct labour schemes can only be given when the schemes are completed and the final accounts settled up. When a sufficient number of direct labour schemes have been completed I will see whether it is possible to obtain from local authorities information which will enable such an average cost as the hon. Member desires to be estimated.

Mr. THOMSON: How much longer will the House have to wait for this information; and is the right hon. Gentleman not of opinion that a considerable economy might be effected if we knew what these figures were?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Until I have a sufficient number.

AGRICULTURAL PARISHES.

Mr. PALING: 41.
asked the Minister of Health how many of the agricultural parishes within the meaning of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, have built houses under that Act; how many houses have been built; what are the highest and lowest rents charged for such houses; and how many houses are estimated to be required?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer necessarily contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply.

2,241 houses have been authorised under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, to be erected in 355 agricultural parishes in England and Wales. Up to the 1st June contracts had been let or definite arrangements made for the erection of 1,028, and of these 242 had been completed.

Information is not available in a complete form as to rents charged for such houses, but as regards rents charged by certain rural district councils for houses, in agricultural parishes, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which was circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT on the 11th ultimo, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Devizes.

No reliable estimate as to the number of houses required in agricultural parishes is available.

AGRICULTURAL COTTAGES (DISPOSSESSED TENANTS).

Mr. RILEY: 42.
asked the Minister of Health how many certificates have been granted under the Rent and Mortgage Restriction Acts of 1920 to 1925 by county council committees to farmers and owners of agricultural cottages for dispossession of tenants; and if he will take steps to ensure that such dispossessed tenants are entitled to have suitable alternative accommodation offered to them before being dispossessed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no particulars as to the number of certificates issued by county agricultural committees under the Acts referred to. The suggestion in the latter part of the question would involve further legislation.

Mr. RILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiry made as to how many of these certificates have been issued?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I will.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSECT BITES (DEATHS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 37.
asked the Minister of Health how many deaths were caused in 1924 in England and Wales by bite of an insect.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There were 12 deaths in England and Wales in 1924 which were caused, according to medical certificate or coroner's inquisition, by the bite of an insert.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any research is proceeding as to treatment?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL WARDS (STONE-POUNDING).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Health what were the prescribed amounts of stone-pounding for casuals detained for an entire day, and what for those detained for one night only, in the orders sanctioning stone pounding, which were issued after the decision in Rex v. Baddeley and before the present Casual Poor (Relief) Order, and, if the amounts varied in different orders, will he state those where the amounts were respectively highest and lowest, giving the names of the unions to which they applied; and whether he will have a copy of the Order circulated to Members of this House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the eight instances in which the task was defined by time and not by quantity, men detained one night were required to work for three hours, and men detained two nights, nine hours. In the other instances it is scarcely practicable to identify the highest and lowest amounts of task as there are differences to be considered in the quality of the stone and the size to which it is reduced by pounding. The tasks were authorised by letters of the Local Government Board and not by a formal Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — VENEREAL DISEASE.

Mr. BASIL PETO: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the Report of the Trevethin Committee has been published for over two years and that the Ministry has accepted the Report in principle, with the exception of Clause 14, which has been under their consideration for a prolonged period, a date may be fixed for giving a definite reply to the Ministry of Health's acceptance or rejection of the recommendations contained in Clause 14 of the Trevethin Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to his question of the 7th May, and to the further answer which I gave on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Fareham Division (Major-General Sir J. Davidson) on the 22nd instant.

Mr. BENNETT: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that
Colonel L. W. Harrison, of the Ministry of Health, at the Congress of the Royal Institute of Public Health at Brighton, on 29th May, objected to Mr. H. Wansey Bayly, honorary secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, quoting from the evidence of witnesses before Lord Trevethin's Committee of Inquiry, on the ground that such evidence was confidential; whether the Ministry of Health had received from the Committee of Inquiry any communication to the effect that the evidence of witnesses before that Committee would be treated as confidential; and, seeing that typewritten copies of evidence are being supplied on application to those who gave it without any stipulation being made that such copies are confidential, what is the reason for the non-publication of the evidence before this Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. I understand that the Committee decided not to ask for the publication of the evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 40.
asked the Minitser of Health whether in view of the statement in the actuary's Report on the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, on page five that women during their period of employment will make a contribution towards the benefits to which they will be entitled, either in their own right or as the wives and widows of insured men, he will state what amount of the women's weekly contribution will be used for widows' and orphans' pensions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The financial provisions of the Bill do not require the contributions received to be allocated between the expenditure arising on the different types of benefit. As my Noble Friend will see from paragraph five of the Government Actuary's Report, the rate of contribution for women has not been computed in such a way as to make a specific provision by an insured woman and her employer in respect of each one of the several benefits to which she may become entitled. The contributions paid in respect of women are no more than
payments towards the cost of the benefits to which women will be entitled and are fixed at one-half of the contributions payable in respect of men, which are also devoted largely to the provision of benefits for women. In these circumstances no particular part of the woman's contribution can be assigned to a particular benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SOCIETIES (OPTHALMIC BENEFIT).

Mr. BENNETT: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has issued an order that in future optical benefits may only be granted on the certificate of the panel practitioner and after sight-testing by a medical man; and, seeing that the general medical practitioner knows little or nothing of sight-testing, will he say whether he has received any representations on the subject from qualified opticians?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The new model scheme for the provision of opthalmic benefit by Approved Societies as an additional benefit contains a provision to the effect that, except in the case of repair or renewal of optical appliances, an applicant for the benefit must have obtained and furnished his society with a written recommendation from a medical practitioner. I have received representations on the subject both from bodies representing opticians and in the opposite sense from representatives of the medical profession, including opthalmic specialists and these representations have had due consideration.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is not the Minister aware that there are many men specially trained as opticians who have much more knowledge and experience of the eye than the average panel doctor?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question only suggests that there is a difference of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL PEACE.

Mr. G. THORNE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of his appeal for peace in industry, whether he proposes to introduce any Bills dealing with profit-sharing and co-partnership, giving statutory powers to joint industrial councils and
similar bodies, encouraging the setting up of works committees in factories and mines, giving fuller publicity to the finances and profits of industries, and stimulating the adoption of supplementary schemes of insurance by industry for unemployment, sickness, old age and death?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permisssion, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

While I am anxious to further in every practicable way the promotion of peace in industry, I am not persuaded that Government intervention in the matter of profit-sharing and co-partnership schemes, or Government interference with the establishment by voluntary action of works committees, would be helpful in that direction.

As regards the giving of statutory powers to joint industrial councils, there is not sufficient evidence of general agreement on the matter on the part of organisations of employers and of workpeople to warrant action on the lines indicated.

The need over the whole field of industry appears to be for voluntary combined effort and initiative much more than for State intervention.

As regards the last part of the question, there already exists in the supplementary schemes provided for under Section 20 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, the machinery for progress on the lines suggested. As regards insurance in respect of sickness, old age and death, I am not at all sure that the nature of the risk and the existing and proposed systems of insurance are such as to make separate industrial arrangements appropriate or practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET MINISTERS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the constitutional and public importance of the matter, he will state the grounds upon which he has come to the decision that in future no Cabinet Minister shall contribute articles to the Press?

The PRIME MINISTER: In my view, and I am sure in the view of the House, the grounds are obvious.

Captain BENN: Is it a fact, as stated in the Press, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to publish a book?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the statement.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Does the decision extend to the publication of books or the painting of pictures by Cabinet Ministers?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that "journalism" is the word used, and he can form his own conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD COUNCIL.

Mr. JOHN GUEST: 53 and 75.
(1) asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to take any further action to prevent profiteering in foodstuffs;
(2) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any progress has yet been made in the appointment of the Food Council; whether the chairman has been appointed, and what is his name and salary; where the office of the Council will be situated; and whether the country will be represented by regional appointments or the members of the Council confined to persons resident in London?

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister when the Government will take action, on the lines indicated recently, to bring about a reduction in the high price of food?

Captain GARRO-JONES: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the name of the chairman or any of the members of the proposed Food Council?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The action which the Government propose to take with regard to the appointment of a Food Council was stated by the Prime Minister in his speech at Welbeck on the 1st June. Lord Bradbury has accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to become chairman of the Food Council. It is not proposed that he should receive a salary. An announcement will be made when the other members have been appointed.

Mr. GUEST: Is it not desirable that some more immediate and drastic action should be taken on this question than appears to be involved in this proposal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If that were the view of the Government, we should have adopted a policy other than that announced by the Prime Minister.

Mr. TAYLOR: Do the Government consider that legislative action will be necessary before the Food Council can be set up?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. The Prime Minister said plainly in the speech to which I have referred that the Food Council would be set up without legislative action.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Did Lord Bradbury accept the chairmanship fully understanding that condition?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENTS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. STEPHEN: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for facilities being given for the passing of the Allotments (Scotland) Bill, in view of the fact that it is backed by Members of all parties in this House and also commands the approval of the town councils of Glasgow and Edinburgh and the various allotment holders associations in Scotland?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have been asked to reply. The Leader of the House informs me that in view of the state of public business he is not prepared to give facilities for the passing of the Bill referred to, which raises important questions of principle.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Bill is being passed for England, and is he not looking after the interests of Scotland in this matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. I am aware that a Bill is being brought before the House, but it will be a Bill different from that which the hon. Member has in mind.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Whips not to oppose the passage of this Bill after 11 o'clock?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Captain BENN: What becomes of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it is lack of time, when it is the definite and direct opposition of the Government Whips?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I made it quite clear that there is a definite matter of principle concerned in this question.

Mr. HARDIE: Is this a method of trying to evade the matter of the £4,000 which is involved in this Scottish land question? Is it a move to get away from the promise of £4,000 in connection with allotments in Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There was no promise of £4,000 for the purposes with which this Bill deals.

Mr. STEPHEN: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do in the interests of Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether silkworms either in the pupa state or otherwise, and silkworm gut, which is made from the drawn-out glands of the silkworm, will be subject to tax; and, if so, to what amount?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Silkworms which have not reached the cocoon stage, and silkworm gut, which is made from the silkworm before it has reached that stage, will not be liable to duty under the Finance Bill. The point at which the Silk Duties are first leviable is at the cocoon stage, when the silk filaments are extruded from the silkworm. Silkworm gut is obtained by extracting the viscous matter from the glands before the worm commences to extrude it in filament form, and by stretching it out to harden in the form in which it is used for fishing casts.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. BECKETT: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, under the Regulations of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, tickets sold for a public meeting at which one or two suit able musical items are given, and on which no profit is made, are liable to Entertainments Duty?

Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. Member would let me have particulars of any case of this kind that he has in mind, I will give it my careful consideration and communicate further with him.

INCOME TAX RETURNS.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that inquisitorial demands for details concerning items in Income Tax returns are being sent not merely to persons who might be regarded as exceptional cases or where fraud might be reasonably suspected, but to ladies and private persons indiscriminately; and whether he will cause such inquiries to be restricted to cases where there is prima facie reason for inquiry?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries made in the course of the examination of Income Tax returns are restricted to matters which are strictly relevant to the determination of the liability in each particular case. If my hon. Friend has in mind any case in which he thinks this rule has not been observed, and will give me particulars, I will cause inquiry to be made and will communicate the result to him in due course.

Sir C. OMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to hear that I have lately had brought to my notice by constituents one case where a long series of interrogatories was sent to a deserted wife concerning the doings of her absconding and adulterous husband, and another case of a taxpayer of over 80 who was asked to give returns of all investments, though her returns have never been quarrelled with over all the years she has been sending them in?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be surprised at nothing, but I would examine everything.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE (PENSIONS).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act apply to pensions payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, notwithstanding that pensioners may be resident in Ireland, and that the Dublin Metropolitan Police have
been paid increases under the 1920 Act, he will state why it is they have been excluded from the 1924 Act; and whether he will take steps to include them?

Mr. GUINNESS: Dublin Metropolitan Police pensions are not payable out of moneys provided by Parliament. There is, therefore, as I informed the hon. Member on 31st March, no power to grant them additional increases of pension under the 1924 Act.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that, during the discussions on the Pensions Bill, a pledge was given that the position and all the rights of these pensioners would be preserved?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have no knowledge of any pledges given that they would have any additional pensions. Their position as beneficiaries has been preserved.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we were told that, when we were asked to exclude the words "Great Britain" it would not affect their position in any way, and is it not a fact that these are the only class of pensioners who do not receive any increase under the Act?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think the hon. and gallant Member is referring to a matter which he raised on a subsequent occasion. The context of that statement about the words "Great Britain" shows, I think, that this was in an entirely different connection dealing with the local authorities in Northern Ireland.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1924, which gave increases of pension to pre-War police pensioners but excluded the Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioners alone, although these servants of the Crown had benefited by the previous Pensions Increase Act, whether he is aware that his predecessor stated on the Committee stage of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1924, that the insertion of the words Great Britain in that Bill would not interfere in the least with any contract; and whether, seeing that the contract of these Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioners was with His Majesty's
Government, he can assure the House that His Majesty's Government will see to it that these men are given their due?

Mr. GUINNESS: The statement by my predecessor to which the hon. Member refers was made upon Clause 3 of the Bill and related solely to increases of pension payable by local authorities. It is not, therefore, in point. There is, however, no question of any breach of contract with Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioners, as they remain in receipt of all pension benefits to which they were entitled at the date of the transfer of the service to the Irish Free State.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM (WOMEN'S WORK).

Viscountess ASTOR: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when additional space is to be provided for the Imperial War Museum, so as to enable the models and other exhibits commemorating the work of women in the War to be shown to the public?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the Noble Lady to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Bosworth Division (Captain Gee) on the 16th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AERODROME CONSTRUCTION (LABOUR).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take steps to ensure that the Air Ministry and its contractors, when constructing aerodromes in agricultural areas, should draw the unskilled labour required from the unemployed men upon the books of the Employment Exchange and not from those already in employment in the district?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): The whole question referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend is being very carefully considered by the Air Ministry in consultation with the Ministries of Agriculture and Labour with a view to determining what action is possible in the matter.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not
agree that it is desirable, when the Government does spend this money, that they should spend it in such a way as to diminish the number of unemployed, instead of promoting the uncultivation of the soil?

MARSHAL.

Mr. G. THORNE: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what are the reasons for changing the highest Air Force rank from Marshal of the Air to Marshal of the Royal Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on the 12th May last.

AIR COMMUNICATIONS (AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Australian and New Zealand Governments have been approached, and, if so, with what results, with regard to the linking up of these two Dominions and Great Britain by means of an air service?

Sir P. SASSOON: In accordance with the recommendations of the Air Communications Committee of the Imperial Economic Conference, 1923, the Dominion Governments have been informed of the position of the airship scheme and, in general, of all developments affecting civil aviation. The question of approaching the Australian and New Zealand Governments in regard to the linking up of those countries and Great Britain by an air service will be taken up when the experimental stage of the airship programme is further advanced.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that, when the various Empire Governments have made these communications possible, we are then going to hand them over to private enterprise and thereby create a vested interest in what should obviously be a national concern?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to draw that conclusion.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Need we wait for all these experiments to be made before approaching these two Dominions?

Sir P. SASSOON: As I explained in my answer, we have already informed
the Dominions of what we are doing, and I do not think anything further can usefully be done in the matter until the experimental stages are further advanced.

Captain GEE: As a result of this correspondence, might I ask if the Dominions have informed us how it is that their fatal accidents are so much fewer than they are in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — OYSTER FISHERIES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can inform the House as to the number of oyster fisheries in the United Kingdom; and what, if anything, is done by his Department to encourage the breeding of this article of food?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): As the answer is somewhat long, I propose, with the permission of my hon. Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The principal oyster fisheries around the coast of England and Wales are those of the Thames estuary and the Swale, near Faversham, Seasalter, Whitstable and Herne Bay; the grounds off Suffolk and Essex in the Orwell, Colne, Black-water, Crouch and Roach Rivers; the Chichester and Poole Harbour grounds, and the Yealm, Tamar, Fal and Helford River grounds.

Experiments in oyster breeding have been carried out for a number of years at the Ministry's Shellfish Research Station at Conway, and for shorter periods in the Menai Straits and the estuary of the Exe. The results of these experiments have been communicated to oyster merchants and planters. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of detailed reports on the Conway experiments, and would also refer him to pages 111 to 117 of the Report on Sea Fisheries for the years 1919–1923. Further details of these experiments will be given in the Annual Report on Sea Fisheries for 1924, which will shortly be published.

For similar information regarding Scotland and Northern Ireland, I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friends the Secretary for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MANUFACTURED GOODS (IMPORTS).

Brig.-General Sir HENRY CROFT: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of imports of wholly or mainly manufactured goods into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the 12 months completed at the end of April; and whether he is in a position to say approximately how many workers would have received employment had these goods been manufactured in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The declared value of the total imports of articles wholly or mainly manufactured, into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1925, amounted to £320,423,000. Re-exports during the same period of articles wholly or mainly manufactured were valued at £34,359,000. I do not think it would be possible to make any reliable estimate in reply to the latter part of the question.

Sir H. CROFT: Cannot it be taken as a fact that approximately the wages on manufactured goods amount to 50 per cent of the total value, and, if this is so, does it not mean that in these days we are importing sufficient manufactured goods into this country to give employment to 1,000,000 men at £3 a week throughout the year?

STEEL (IMPORTS).

Sir H. CROFT: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of steel imports in the last completed 12 months, and how many unemployed there are in the British steel industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The value of the imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the 12 months ended May, 1925, so far as the particulars are available, was £19,625,000. This total, however, is inclusive of some manufactures of iron, which are not distinguished in the monthly accounts from similar manufactures of steel. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) by the Minister of Labour on the 22nd June, where the particulars are fully set out.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that these imports of finished steel goods, were
they excluded, would largely give employment to the whole of the unemployed in that industry?

COTTON SPINDLES (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).

Sir H. CROFT: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of spindles in the cotton industry in Great Britain and the United States, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: According to the information given in the "International Cotton Bulletin," the estimated numbers of cotton-spinning spindles at the end of January, 1925, were 56,710,000 in Great Britain and 37,886,000 in the United States of America.

Colonel APPLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the wages paid in America in this industry are not at least twice those paid in this country?

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the numbers given refer to the spindles in the country or to the number of spindles employed? What is the number employed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer refers to the total number of spindles. I do not know whether I could obtain the number employed, but if my hon. and gallant Friend puts down a question, I will see if I can give him the information he desires.

Mr. LANSBURY: Could the right hon. Gentleman at the same time give information as to the number of British-owned spindles in Japan and China manufacturing cotton goods to go to India in competition with Lancashire spindles?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think it would be possible to obtain that information.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WORKING CONDITIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND CONTINENT).

Mr. FORREST: 77.
asked the Secretary for Mines the differences in respect to working conditions in the coal mines of Great Britain, France, Germany, and Belgium, more especially as regards depth of shafts and thickness of seams?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): I fear that it would be quite impossible for me to do this within the
limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question. It is probably true to say that, generally speaking, geological conditions are in our favour.

Mr. FORREST: 79.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of hours per shift worked in the coal mines in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Belgium?

Colonel LANE-FOX: In Great Britain the law requires that not more than seven hours shall elapse between the time when the last man of a shift leaves the surface and the first man returns to the surface. On the average, therefore, it may be said that a man is allowed to be below ground for the purpose of his work or of going to and from his work for a period of seven hours plus one winding time, or, on average, rather over 7½ hours bank to bank. In France, Belgium and the Ruhr coalfield of Germany, the limit for each individual workman is eight hours bank to bank.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the people who are raising the question of hours in the mining industry of this country are rendering the very greatest disservice to the cause of peace in the mining industry?

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why is a hen?

Mr. LAWSON: Why? Because there will never be an increase, that is why!

STOCKS.

Mr. FORREST: 78.
asked the Secretary for Mines the latest estimate of the stock of coal now available at the pitheads in France, Belgium, Germany, and Great Britain, respectively?

Colonel LANE-FOX: At the end of April, 1,781,660 (metric) tons of coal were held in stock at Belgian collieries, and it has been estimated that at the end of May between nine and 10 million (metric) tons were held in stock by collieries in the Ruhr. I regret that I have not similar information for Great Britain and France.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF, WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Goschen Committee has refused a loan to the West Ham Board
of Guardians, and, owing to this refusal, 61,585 persons will be without sustenance on Tuesday next, and whether he is aware of the feeling in this area, and what action he proposes to take to deal with such a grave position?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a fact that the West Ham Guardians have applied for a further loan and that the Committee referred to have recommended that certain conditions shall be attached to that loan. One of these conditions has been accepted by the guardians, and I am in correspondence with them about the remainder. I have no reason to suppose that the position on Tuesday next will be as the hon. Member alleges,

Mr. GROVES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that at a meeting of the West Ham Board of Guardians to-day it was decided to reject the proposals made by the Goschen Committee.

An HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

Mr. GROVES: There was a public meeting held to-day. Is he aware that the guardians have rejected the proposals? Therefore, a state of unrest exists in our area, and what does he propose to do?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me to be aware of what took place this morning at the board of guardians. I am awaiting an answer to the communication that I have addressed to the guardians.

Mr. GROVES: In view of the fact that the answer will be "No." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh! "] Mr. Speaker, I know there has been a meeting, because I attended it, and I can state that the answer will be "No." In view of that position, as I have put it in my question, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is prepared to do in view of the real state of unrest in West Ham?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am awaiting a reply to the further communication that I have addressed to the guardians.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself, through his Department, is bringing pressure to bear upon the West Ham board of guardians to do something which
his Department has no legal power to do, except by means of preventing them getting the loan, and that it is a matter of attempting to impose a scale upon the board of guardians which the right hon. Gentleman has no legal right to do, and which his Department is only trying to do through pressure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can assure the hon. Member that I am not attempting to do anything illegal.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday the Under-Secretary stated that the Minister had no power to fix a scale at all, and how can he reconcile with that statement the statement he has just now made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see anything inconsistent between them.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NEWSPAPEES (TRADE DISPUTE).

Sir W. de FRECE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the fact that a stoppage of the printing of London papers appears to be imminent, and what efforts, if any, the Government are making to avoid this contingency occurring?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware that certain differences have arisen in the newspaper industry in London. Following discussions which representatives of the parties have had with my Department, negotiations have been proceeding between the employers' and Workers' organisations concerned which, I venture to hope, will lead to an amicable settlement of the points at issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Agriculture with reference to the importation of Irish labourers into Suffolk. I would like to ask you, Sir, what is the reason for refusing the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I asked the hon. Member to put it on the Paper. It is not a question that came under the class which can be taken after a quarter to 4 o'clock.

Mr. ADAMSON: Are you aware, Sir, that I put a question upon this point 10 days ago, on which the Minister was unable then to give me an answer? The difficulty still exists, and I think we are entitled to some explanation, and report upon the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will put it on the Paper, I hope that he will get the information.

Mr. ADAMSON: But men are out of employment, while Irish labourers are being imported, and I want to know something about it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: The Motion of Censure standing on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition. We propose to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to consider the Lords Amendments to the Agricultural Returns Bill, China Indemnity (Application) Bill, and the Valuation (Metropolis) Bill. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday: Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill; Committee stage.

Ordered,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

LATE SITTINGS (ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS).

Mr. MACKINDER: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the possibility of further sittings of this House being continued beyond the hour when train, omnibus and tram facilities are closed for the night, any arrangement could be made as regards keeping open the House for the convenience of Members who, after the rising of the House, cannot get home until the ordinary traffic facilties are resumed?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes. I am arranging from Monday next for the Library of the House of Commons to be kept open for Members till 6 a.m. on nights when the House sits after 12.30 a.m. This will
enable Members who, owing to the absence of trains and omnibuses, cannot reach their homes, to obtain some rest in the Library until 6 a.m., when travelling facilities are again available.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Have we any power, Sir, or have you, to turn the House of Lords into a dormitory?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that such power does not reside in the hon. Member nor in me

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it not already a dormitory?

POOR LAW RELIEF, WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: In view of the state of unrest in West Ham, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the refusal of a public loan to the Guardians of the West Ham Union, with the result that the guardians will not be able to discharge their statutory obligations with respect to the relief of the poor, and that more than 60,000 persons will be left destitute."

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry that I cannot put that Motion to the House under Standing Order No. 10. It does not comply with the provisions of the Standing Order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that on Tuesday next, if this loan is not forthcoming, this local board will not be able to perform their functions, and that if these people are not paid relief a great state of unrest is likely to arise in South-West Ham, is it not a matter of urgent public importance for this House to discuss it, seeing that it is on Tuesday next that the situation will arise?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to look at these questions with regard to the whole field, and in my opinion there is in this instance no case such as would come under Standing Order No. 10. The House heard the answer of the Minister—that certain proposals have been made and negotiations are going on, and, in any case, discretionary power is given to the Minister in the matter of these loans.

Mr. BARNES: May I point out that in this case the financial weapon which the Government hold over a body like a board of guardians is being used? The guardians have done nothing illegal so
far in adopting their present scale of relief. The trouble with West Ham arises purely from the fact that there is abnormal unemployment. The rates are exceedingly high, and it is impossible for the guardians to raise any more through the means of the rates. If the guardians suspend operations, I wish you to consider the position that we shall be in, with 60,000 people unemployed and receiving no relief.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Before you give your answer to that point of order, Sir, may I submit two points to you? First of all, that it is necessary for the House to express its view upon the way in which the Minister proposes to use his discretion. If he uses it in such a way on Monday as will create trouble on Tuesday—whether he has used it rightly from his own point of view, or wrongly—I submit that an occasion like that, an event like that, is precisely the sort of thing that is contemplated in the Standing Order. Secondly, if on Monday it is found that the Minister has refused to give a grant, will it be held by you, because it has been raised to-day, and you could not accept it as urgent on account of the answer the Minister has just given—will that be held by you to deprive us of our right on Monday to raise the question when the matter is completely closed?

Mr. SPEAKER: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman has shown, in the first place, that the final decision has not yet been given With regard to the other matter, there is the further question of urgent public importance to be considered. I must have regard to the whole field of discretion which is placed in the Minister with regard to granting or refusing a loan. One particular local authority may have a grievance, but I have to regard this question from the point of view of how a ruling of mine would affect all the other local authorities in the country who might have grievances. I should have to consider that when the time arises.

DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of' the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

ELECTION OF A MEMBER (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE UMPIRE).

Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 132.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
4.0 P.M.
The time has arrived when this Bill is to be hustled off the Parliamentary stage into the comparative obscurity of the Statute Book, and I and my hon. Friends on these benches desire, therefore, to take this last opportunity of expressing our uncompromising hostility to, and disapproval of, the principles underlying this Measure. This is an amazing Bill, amazing both in its effrontery and in its unwisdom. If I may, I would first of all say a word on its unwisdom. This Bill, which confers enormous grants of money-I understand that it gives pain to refer to them as doles-upon wealthy men in this country, is being put forward at a time when the Question Paper is thick with queries concerning the increase of unemployment, the crushing burden of rates upon communities like West Ham, and the impending difficulty which may arise in some of our main industries. From the psychological point of view, I cannot imagine any Measure more designed than this Finance Bill, when examined in its details, to exasperate class feeling and to arouse increased discontent. When the Budget was first introduced, a commentator in the Press observed that it was the kind of finance which might have been concocted by a junior Treasury clerk who had temporarily become insane. As the discussions on it have proceeded, we have begun to discover some method underlying the apparent madness of the creator of the Budget.
We have discovered in this Bill a naked surrender to the clamour of sectional and class interests. We have discovered, in the first place, the re-introduction of Protection upon a considerable scale. It is quite true that at the last Election pledges were given by the Prime
Minister, and by many, though not by all, of his followers, against the re-introduction of Protection in this country, but the Prime Minister and some of his followers appear to wear elastic-sided consciences in this matter. Seven different commodities and groups of articles are afforded protection in this Budget which were not afforded protection in the Finance Bill of last year. That is a very considerable start. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House will know what these groups of articles are. I will briefly enumerate them: Motor cars and accessories, clocks and watches, musical instruments, cinema films, lace and embroidery, artificial silk, and, finally, hops. All these interests have their supporters on the benches opposite, and a considerable wedge has already been driven into the Prime Minister's pledge that Protection would not be re-introduced in this Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you read his Election address?"] I have read his Election address, and I have noted his votes and the votes of hon. Members opposite, and we are beginning to recognise some discrepancy between them. I do not know what number of trades have to secure protection before that pledge is broken, but up to the moment the number is seven, and I am justified in saying that already the conscience of the Prime Minister and of those who gave similar pledges has been strained, I will not say to breaking point, but to a very considerable extent and has manifested a little elasticity.
I wish to say one further word about silk, although, largely owing to the indefatigable efforts of hon. Members below the Gangway, who seem to regard the Silk Duties as the most important thing in the Budget-I do not agree-they have been already fully discussed. It remains to point out, however, that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is protecting artificial silk with one hand, he is with the other stabbing in the back one of the few promising new industries growing up in this country. It may be true that, following the precedent of Mr. Gladstone is 1862, he is giving a slight protective turn to the scheme of these duties, but even the slight protective turn, although it may be an element in the violation of an Election pledge, is not enough to countervail the extreme
damage that may be done to a young industry of this kind by placing upon it a new tax burden. We are, I submit, in danger, industrially, at this moment, through a tendency to live too much on the momentum of the past. Our textile industry can only continue to live and prosper if it is continually developing new ideas leading to new methods, new processes, and new substances, and the development of the artificial silk industry has been a wonderful example of the way in which our textile people are rising superior to the difficulties of the time, the ravages of the boll weevil and other handicaps. Yet this is the time of all others, when these gallant attempts are being made, that an additional burden is being placed on an industry which holds out the prospect of making an increasing contribution to employment and economic progress of the country.
I turn, however, from these comparatively unimportant subjects and come back to the much more fundamental question of the enormous distortion of the tax system and of the distribution of wealth which has been brought about by this Budget. The Super-tax reduction is a land mark in our financial history. Never since 1909, when the first timid beginning was made in this direction, have the rates of Super-tax been reduced.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): It is high time!

Mr. DALTON: I shall take note of that for future reference. This is the first time that a reduction has been made in the taxation of the super-wealthy section of the community, and I shall be interested to know whether any hon. Member on the other side of the House informed his constituents during the General Election that he would vote for a reduction of the Super-tax. I challenge any hon. Member, in reply to my query, to state that he told his electors he would vote for a reduction of the Super-tax. None of them did. In other words, this matter was not mentioned at the Election when the Red Letter formed the main theme of their orations and the cure for unemployment which they claimed they had, although we had it not, was being advertised. No
reference was then made to this proposal to reduce the Super-tax.
It is always interesting to see the working out of theories which men have put forward in the past, and this Budget is one of the most complete justifications of the theory of Karl Marx on the materialist interpretation of history- the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt, has read the book and knows what I mean-the theory, in short, that men are directed exclusively in their actions by economic motives. I do not myself wholly subscribe to the doctrine, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given it an exceedingly good advertisement and made it appear plausible as applied to a party containing considerable section of wealthy men in their ranks. As soon as they are returned to power with an overwhelming majority obtained on other issues, they use that power in order to benefit the economic position of that section of society to which most of them belong.
This Super-tax reduction is not to be regarded in a watertight compartment; it must be taken in conjunction with the reduction in the Income Tax which also figures in the Budget. As I mentioned on a previous occasion when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here, as a result of the Budget the millionaire is left with £40 a week to the good. It is quite true that a pretence has been put up from the other side that this diminution in the Super-tax is balanced by an increase in the Death Duties, but that pretence, I submit, is exceedingly hollow; I ventured the other night to put a question to the Chancellor's under-study. He told us that the increased Death Duties were designed exactly to balance the reduction in the Super-tax to the same grades of wealth, and so forth. I put a simple question to him. I said, "Is it not the case that the millionaire does not pay the increased Death Duty, while he does receive considerable advantage from the reduction in the Super-tax?" The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had to admit that was so. In other words, the very wealthiest section of the community do not pay the additional Death Duties, but do receive considerable benefit from the reduction in the Supertax.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are no alterations in the rates of Super-tax or of Death Duties for estates of over £1,000,000, but, following the universal principle, they receive any rebates or remissions which are given on smaller incomes, whether in discrimination between earned and unearned income, or in allowances for children and so on.

Mr. DALTON: The result of that arrangement is as I have stated. The result is that millionaires are not made to pay the increased Death Duties while they get the advantage of the reduction in the Super-tax. Therefore, it remains true that the super-wealthy section of the community score heavily. The increased Estate Duties are only charged upon Estates of £12,500 upwards, and £12,500 invested at 5 per cent. brings in between £600 and £700 a year. The increased Death Duties are being levied on persons with incomes of £600 and upwards, whereas the Super-tax reduction benefit begins to accrue to people with incomes of over £2,000. Therefore, there is a certain section of poorer people who suffer in the contrary direction, and this so-called balance between the Death Duties and the Super-tax is not a proper balance at all. It is a very inaccurate and rough balance which favours the richer sections of the community as against the poorer sections who are merely relieved of some part of their taxes at the expense of having to pay more in another direction. I have maintained the view elsewhere, and I shall be prepared to maintain it here, that a reduction in the Income Tax standard rate is only permissible as a matter of financial principle at the present time if the Super-tax is increased and not diminished. For that proposition, there is something to be said, but, when both the standard rate of the Income Tax and the Super-tax are reduced, then, I think, we are in the presence of exceedingly unsound and unjustifiable finance.
We are familiar with the excuse put forward in defence of this proposal. It is said that the money is going to be reinvested for the benefit of industry, and all the rest of it. On that I wish simply to raise two points, though I think that argument has been pretty well exploded in our previous Debates. As a matter of fact, it cannot be denied that a very
large part of these various remissions to wealthy people will not be re-invested in industry at all. A great deal of it has been spent in advance at Ascot, and much of it will be spent later on in ways that will give no benefit to the industry of this country. Secondly, even if it be re-invested, we want to know more closely where and how it is to be reinvested before we can be satisfied with that defence. Is it to be invested in the sweat shops of Shanghai, not indeed in bringing Chinese sweated labour into this country to compete with our people here, but in financing the mills in China which employ these sweated people in order that the competition may take place on the soil of China rather than in Lancashire. Is that the kind of re-investment that is going to do any good to Lancashire?
There is an old-fashioned view, to which I do not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is always modern in his views, and who is always ready to change will subscribe that a mere investment of capital anywhere and anyhow is going to benefit the country. If we were dealing with this matter on the merits and aiming at securing a considerable additional investment of capital in ways beneficial to the country, we should not simply give away large sums of money to wealthy people which will not be invested or which, if invested, will be invested unwisely. What we should be more inclined to do would be deliberately to direct the resources set free by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which might be increased by further taxation of the rich, into channels of development which we think are socially desirable from the point of view of the community, whether it be land, or transport or power or electricity, or coal or anything of that kind. That would be a constructive and businesslike way of securing an increased investment of capital in channels which would be beneficial to the nations. Ah! But that would be Socialism, which lies outside the hypotheses of the Chancellor of the Exchequer!
We are told that in the party opposite-in the young Tory party- there are many modern reincarnations of Disraeli, said to have come to life again, and I hope they are pleased with this Budget. No doubt they have all
read "Sybil" and all about the "Two Nations"—the nation of the rich and the nation of the poor, whom Disraeli sought to bring together. The effect of this Budget is the exact opposite of that, because it widens the gap between those two Englands. In the economic sense it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
In the psychological sense it also widens the gap, and the most astounding thing of all is that this is the moment which is chosen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to push through a Measure of this kind, a moment when unemployment is heaping up week by week, when the Government stand powerless and impotent to deal with it, and when in some of our great industries there are impending troubles of no small magnitude, and in the mining industry and on the railways there are threats of lock-outs and demands being made by employers for a reduction of wages and the working of longer hours. How is the passing of this Bill going to affect that situation and the prospects of peace in our time? We are told that we want sacrifices all round. I suppose the reduction of wages and the increase of hours which are being demanded are to be a balance against the reduction of Super-tax and the Income Tax. I would like to ask what sacrifices are being made by those best in a position to make sacrifices and who have been handling the greater part of the rare and refreshing fruit provided for them by this Finance Bill? It would appear that, although peace in our time is a prayer to which many in the abstract can give lip service, the friends of the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider that a dole in the hand is worth two prayers in the bush. How will these doles in the Finance Bill and those prayers affect our industries and the strikes and lock-outs which may take place during the next few weeks? I cannot imagine anything more calculated to stir up strife.
If we take the Clauses of this Finance Bill one by one and state their meaning plainly, without any rhetoric and without any appeal to sentiment, is it likely that that will incline any large bodies of miners or railwaymen to accept a reduction in wages or a lengthening of their hours of work? I feel the most important point is that, whatever might be said for
this Bill at any other time—and very little could be said—there is still less to be said for it at this particular moment in view of the dangerous situation which is developing in our industries. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer persists in driving this Bill through in its present form, I think we may say that he will contribute fuel to the fire which many of us fear may blaze up in the industrial districts, although we hope that our fears will be mistaken. Nevertheless, I think we should be clearly wanting in our duty if we did not take this last opportunity of expressing our deep concern in regard to this Budget, and we shall divide the House against this Measure on the Third Reading.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: We have just seen an example of the new light of the economic sun which is shed upon the counsels of Members above the Gangway and which has led them into strange paths. If I understand aright the new doctrine enunciated in the speech of the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, it is that we can afford in this country to be quite indifferent to the prosperity of our foreign trade. That is a startling proposition when you hear it put forward with the hon. Member's admirable rhetoric, and when we recollect what he said about the investment of money in China and other foreign countries. I understand that the hon. Member and his Friends, if they had the direction of the system of capital, would direct fresh investments into other channels. The hon. Member gave us an indication of the channels into which capital is to be directed. It is to be directed to the improvement of the transport of this country. What a picture that is for the development of Great Britain! All our railways are to be developed, and for what purpose? Is it in order that we should be able to visit each other more conveniently on Bank Holidays? What is the good of developing your transport system unless you have goods to carry backwards and forwards on your railways? Where are the goods to go? I would like to ask how long can this country exist with its present population if you close the doors of your foreign trade? Does the transport system consist of railways only? What about our shipping? Is that a form of transport which is going to be neglected? What is the good of pouring fresh capital into the shipping industry at the present time? What is the good of
further developing our shipping industry if there is to be no foreign trade? I sincerely hope that we shall have a more balanced doctrine than that which seems to have emanated from the secret economic counsels of the party above the Gangway.

Mr. DALTON: The lack of balance is not to be found in my observations, but in the right hon. Gentleman's distortion of them.

Mr. YOUNG: I regret that the hon. Member thinks there is anything distorting in my representation of what he said, but I do not think the majority of the Members of this House will agree that I have in any way put a false interpretation on what the hon. Member said. We must remember that we do not often quite like our arguments when they are carried through the bitter mill of the reduction ad absurdum. But it was not for that purpose that I rose to address the House. Primarily, I rose to lead the discussion to another point, and I do so at the risk of being tedious and for the chief reason that it is my most profound conviction that the weight of argument and discussion in our deliberations on the Budget has not fallen in the right place. I believe we have given too much attention to the actual question of machinery. We have criticized—no doubt with absolute justice —too many of the minor details, and I do not think that the batteries of public attention have been sufficiently turned upon the principal ground of criticism, namely, that this Budget is based upon a scheme which makes no allowance whatever for a reduction of expenditure.
I know I shall run the risk of being tedious, but I shall try to avoid vain repetition. When speaking upon the Second Reading of this Bill, I called attention to the position of our national finance, and I stated that we had in recent years been making heavy reductions in our permanent revenue. In the last four years we have reduced our permanent revenue by £200,000,000 a year; I think £120,000,000 of that reduction was quite safe. I think, however, that the £80,000,000 in the last two years has cut so near to the bone as to cause a position of real anxiety. The position is that the Budget is not now what can be called in a stable position, for this reason: the Budget balance this year is based, in
principle, upon receipts which are not recurrent. It is based upon an item of £30,000,000 for Special Receipts which is not recurrent. They are receipts which we cannot expect to realise in future years. We are consequently faced with a further fall in revenue and we have no margin left to cover that fall. It is a very difficult thing to increase your permanent taxation. Every hon. Member knows the strength of the opposition against any increase of taxation, and we know the psychological effect of an increase in taxation and how it gives a hint to the country that things are not going well and how it produces depression and dismay in the minds of men. That is the last thing we ought to do. We are now confronted with a fresh drop in our revenue, and there is no alternative but a further increase in taxation or a substantial reduction in our national expenditure.
I want to amplify that in one particular, and I wish to point out the important effect of that upon one of our vital national interests, that is, our national credit. Supposing we come up against that; supposing there are no further reductions in expenditure. Something must be done if the revenue continues to fall. I suppose there is not a single hon. Member in this House who takes an interest in these matters who does not know that under these conditions, when you come up against them, when your revenue has fallen and you have not reduced expenditure, you have to cover the gap somehow. What happens is only one thing, and it is that you have to raid the Sinking Fund. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to push through those schemes of economy which he has sketched out, and to bring down to hard facts the rather vague hopes of economy in the years to come, he is up against a position in which he will be chased from pillar to post by the spending Departments for money from the Sinking Fund in order to cover their expenditure. That will be a most serious thing. Two years ago in this House I criticised the establishment of the permanent Baldwin Sinking Fund. At that time, I believe, my criticism was right; I believe that, in view of the great windfalls which had come to the old Sinking Fund, the provision then made was too big. But to-day I stand here to say this, that, hav-
ing established a permanent fixed Sinking Fund upon a regular basis according to a programme, the most dangerous thing in the world that you can do is to depart from it.
Once you have got your Sinking Fund programme established, you must stick to it, you are committed to it, and it is gravely injurious to your credit if you depart from it. It must be maintained, and let me point out to the House the importance of its maintenance during the few years that are immediately to come. A great financial interest of this country, which is not often mentioned on the Floor of this House, but is there in the background—which is in the background of the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I am well aware, as a great anxiety, and which is in the background of our national interest in financial matters—is the great question of conversion. The four years, including this year, of the immediate future—that is to say, three years to come—are the Chancellor of the Exchequer's nightmare years from the point of view of conversion. There is £1,000,000,000 to convert in those years, and then there will be 17 years of comparative peace and ease, when he will have time to get ahead with the sort of year and a day of judgment to come in the shape of conversion in 1947, which is the last year for the conversion of the £2,000,000,000 of 5 per rent. War Loan.
But now, in the years of the immediate future, there are conversions which must be carried out. There is no alternative; they have to be carried out; and they have to be carried out on the best basis of credit that the country can support at the time. Otherwise, there will be great and increasing expenditure. And let the House, of course, observe this, that they have to be carried out upon terms regularly increasing the standard of national credit. In your conversion offers you have to make every offer to the public less favourable than the one that went before, because the bargain is always voluntary, and, if you once make an offer that is more favourable than its predecessor, people will always say they will wait for a more favourable one still, and you will never get your conversion effected. During the three years to come, we have to keep our national credit up to its highest point; we have to keep con-
stantly improving in carrying out conversion. There is another very serious fact, and that is that we have just re-accepted the gold standard. What does that mean? It means that the ease of conversion at any given moment is going to be a very speculative matter. If the moment of conversion happens to clash with the moment of a falling dollar exchange and a rising bank rate, the conversion is going to be a very grave matter. We have at every point, in the course of the next three years, to keep a wide margin in the excellence of our national credit in order to be sure that we are going to carry off these conversions.
How can it be done? I believe there is only one way, or, at least, there is one most important way, in which you can keep the national credit high and improving, to float you over the rocks of these coming years, and that is by enforcing a steady and appreciable reduction in national expenditure. If you do not do so, you must deplete your Sinking Fund, and, therefore, directly injure credit. If you do do so, then, in the eyes of the whole world, as well as of the people of this country, you are steadily improving your credit and making your operations more easy and successful. There are so many aspects of the matter. When you look at a great question in finance, or any other matter, and when you see many and various points of view all combining and beginning to point one way, then you know that that way is the way in which you have got to go. If we look at our national position, I am firmly convinced that, whether we take it from the point of view of industry and the interests of capital, whether we take it from the point of view of the wage-earner and the interests of labour, or whether we take it from the more abstract point of view of the credit of our country, which is really the legacy of prosperity that we are leaving to those who are to come after us—whichever of those points of view we take, we see all fingers pointing down the path of reduction of the burdens of the country in the Budget, which can only be done by reduction in expenditure, and that is what convinces us that that is the path of wisdom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer held out the hope of a reduction of £10,000,000 on the Supply Services. Where is he going to get it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I held out a hope; I said it was an absolutely essential object of endeavour.

Mr. YOUNG: I am obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the correction. I will try to appreciate the rather subtle distinction at leisure; at the moment I think, perhaps, in the stress of time, the single word might be used instead of the sentence. But, in this object of endeavour, where is he going to obtain this £10,000,000?

Mr. CHURCHILL: What would you propose?

Mr. YOUNG: This is an occasion on which we are here to question the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not he to question us. It is his plan that is being passed. Is it going to be done from the Civil Service? That is an area of only 27 per cent of the national expenditure. I am confident that the Chancellor is aware, as all Members of this House are probably aware, that if you are to obtain a reduction of expenditure on national services on the seals which he has described, you can only do it in one of two ways—by reducing the pay of the servants of the State, or by reducing the services rendered to the State. The necessary economies are not to be obtained upon an adequate scale by cheeseparing; there must be either a reduction of services or a reduction of salaries. I should not have used that questionable word "hope" as regards the prospects of a reduction of expenditure there. The other sphere is in military expenditure. That, again, is only 15 per cent. of the whole, which is a very small proportion to which to look for a substantial reduction, but, nevertheless, I believe that it is the region in which you can find where reductions are to be made.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just asked me a question, and I had the answer in my mind, though I had not intended to delay the House by dealing with the matter. I believe it is in the sphere of military expenditure that you must look for a reduction if you are to reduce national expenditure, and for this reason. I certainly would never advocate the reduction of our national forces by one man or one ship or one gun below what is necessary to guarantee the absolute safety of the country, but I do think
at the present time, as a humble student of these questions, as I look at the military policy of this country and others, that our military advisers are letting a great opportunity slip—the opportunity to avoid spending money upon large forces, to rest the country for a period of 10 years, and, meanwhile, to concentrate efforts upon research and progress in method. There is a great deal left to be worked out from the results of the great War. There is science to be developed, there are methods to be developed, there are experiments to be made, particularly in naval matters. If you saved expenditure in gross upon military forces at this time, during the safer period of rest, and spent one-tenth of that sum upon experiments, upon scientific advance and progress, you would be making the country more strong militarily than at present, and would be solving the difficulties of our national Budget. As my last word, I would say that the greatest work that has been done for the finances of this country in the course of the period since the War was done by Lord Balfour at the Washington Conference.

Lord HUGH CECIL: We have now reached the last stage of a Bill that has been very much contested, and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young), I do not desire to enter very deeply into the proposals of the Bill, which have been very carefully discussed during its progress through its various stages. I want, however, to support what has fallen from my right hon. Friend as to the general effect of the burden of taxation, and the danger that we shall, in the discussions about how the revenues of this country are best to be levied, forget the elementary fiscal truth that all taxation is profoundly mischievous, and that, in whatever particular way the incidence of a tax first strikes, sooner or later it affects everyone, or almost everyone, in the community.
The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill dwelt with indignation on the relief that is given to certain taxpayers, whom he regarded as being too rich to be relieved. He may be sure that, in whatever way you take off taxation, the benefit will sooner or later be felt by all the members of the community who are engaged in industrial matters. The spending power and the saving
power of the members of the community are enhanced by every reduction of taxation, and diminished by every increase of taxation. Taxation, therefore, sits as an awful incubus upon the chest of industry, while it groans uneasily in a sleep that is much disturbed. Where, for example, does unemployment come from? How can we cure it? The hon. Member denounced the Government for not having a scheme ready to cure unemployment. Let me say, in passing, that I greatly deplore the absence of that old-fashioned spirit, which told both Capital and Labour that they must find their own way out of their own difficulties.

Mr. J. BAKER: What about the land?

Lord H. CECIL: Yes, the land as well.

Mr. BAKER: Who has got it?

Lord H. CECIL: That does not seem to me to add to the discussion of these considerations. Both Capital and Labour ought, I think, to find their own way, and not look to the Government so much as it has been their custom to do in the past. The plain truth is that you cannot cure unemployment except in one of two ways —by increasing the demand for labour or by making labour cheaper. It is as simple a proposition as can be made, and as incontestible. If you put on taxes, you diminish the spending power and the demanding power of the community, and you tend to enhance the great evil that is called under-consumption, which is certainly one of the principal causes of unemployment at the present time. If you can diminish taxes—anybody's taxes—you increase the spending power and increase also the saving power of the community, and, therefore, you help both the demand for labour and the resources of capital, and in that way you are certain to help industry.
I do not want to say a word in disrespect about the discussions that have taken place on the subject of the particular way in which you are to get the money out of the taxpayer, but a much more important question at the present moment is how you can reduce the total sum which you propose to make the taxpayer pay. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich said admirably on that point, and I can only second and support what has fallen from him, that there is, beyond all doubt at the present moment, a need of economy which cannot
be arrested, and we do, indeed, look to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the guardian of the public purse, to press upon his colleagues the supreme importance of economy. He asks in a friendly way how we propose to do it. One way is by setting your face against improvement. Let us recognise the bitter truth that you cannot have a great economy in the public services without some diminution of efficiency. It is not true, in the main, that there is waste in the public service. In the true sense of the word it is not the case that you do not get value for your money in some way or another. What does happen is that we are spending money on things that in various ways are worth having, but are not worth having at this moment when economy is the first and greatest need. I observe, for instance, that the Government are introducing a reorganisation of the Colonial Office. I dare say it is a very good thing; I have little doubt that it is a very good thing—but it is almost certainly going to cost money, not only directly for the salaries of staffs, which probably, as compared with the total national expenditure, is a small matter, but indirectly. It is one of the great tragedies that lie at the root of the task of public economy, that every person you make a public servant becomes a fountain of expenditure, and the great art of economy would be to reduce the public service—to diminish the number of persons in the public employ.
I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that something might be done to cut down armaments at this time. The whole world being exhausted, even the most pessimistic person cannot anticipate the outbreak of another war. Therefore, I should have thought this was a specially favourable moment for keeping armaments as low as they can be kept. Ardently devoted as I am to the Air Force, I have never concealed my disapproval of the expansion of the Air Force which has been undertaken; not because I do not believe it to be wisely conducted for the purpose in view, but because we cannot afford to spend money at present on anything. We must cut every form of expenditure down to the bone. I do not quite agree that there is no room for reduction in the Civil Service Estimates, but then let us face the fact that we shall give up things which
various bodies of opinion will tell you, and tell you quite truly, are of value. That is what we have to face.
We are all familiar with the private individual who is extravagant and whose friends come round him and try to persuade him to economise, and he says, "But can I give up this?" and, "Can I give up that?" and he has always rather a good case to make for each branch of his expenditure. The nation is exactly in that position. The particular parts of the expenditure can all be defended in themselves. They are all improvements. They all make for the efficient conduct of the public life of the country, but we cannot afford them just now. What we want to do is to go back to the standard of public efficiency that prevailed 20 or 30 years ago and try to cut down expenditure to that scale. How can that be done? The only way it can be done is a way which I am sure will not be adopted because the House itself, though it is kind enough to applaud when we speak in favour of economy, is unwilling to carry through the Measures by which alone it can be achieved.
The way to do it would be by passing a short Statute giving the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and one other person, who might be some trusted retired civil servant familiar with the machinery of government, the power over the heads of their colleagues, without the consent of the Cabinet, to alter policy and to dismiss or retire, on the most generous terms you like, any person they please from public employment. If they had such power, if they could both suspend the operation of Acts of Parliament which involve expenditure, and retire from the public service any number of public servants on generous terms, you really would have some prospect of cutting down expenditure. But unless you have some power of that kind, you will always be defeated in detail, because I have no doubt you would have all the heads of the Department acting in a friendly spirit, but arguing with great ability in favour of their Departments and standing loyally by their subordinates, those subordinates, very able men, all perfectly versed in the machinery of government and the arguments that weigh with Governments, all showing in
turn that their particular expenditure is indispensable to the life of the nation. Therefore I feel almost certain that, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer will try honestly to economise, he will fail. He will be beaten in detail by the active exertions of the Civil Service as a body, led by his own colleagues, who are loyal chiefs of their respective very able Departments. Nevertheless, I am sure economy is of the utmost importance and that we ought to try to connect the idea of economy with the sufferings of the unemployed and the depression of trade and all the other things which move kindly and also prudent persons to sympathy and anxiety. If we could see it all at one glance, if we could see that the expenditure that seems so reasonable in some chamber in Whitehall really means so much more unemployment and so much more poverty and poor homes, so much more depression of trade all over the world-if we could see it in all its consequences, perhaps economy might be achieved.
There are one or two other things in this Bill I should like to refer to. I will say nothing of the Silk Duties, but, apart from that, the attack of the Opposition has been concentrated on Imperial Preference and on the proposal for the safeguarding of the lace industry, and I feel that at this time it is for those of us who are Unionist Free Traders, as we used to call ourselves, to explain what our feelings are in respect to Measures of that kind. If the House will indulge me, let me say one word which seems to be a digression, but I think they will see before I have finished that it is really not a digression at all. I should like to ask a very simple question. What do we mean by wealth? What, fundamentally, is the idea of wealth? It is, I suppose, matter made available for human welfare, and the whole of the economic process with which we are concerned in industry and trade and commerce is a process of extracting from nature various things and making them available for human use. That is the process over which we are watching and about which we are concerned, and which goes well or badly according as we speak of trade and industry being prosperous or not prosperous.
That economic process can be seen in a very simple instance, the instance of
coal, because in the case of coal the material does not go through any manufacture. You merely move it about. Coal lies in a seam and, while there, is only wealth as measured by the royalty that is paid for it, which is a very small part of its ultimate value. It is hewn out of that seam, dragged to the surface and transported by various organisations and it ultimately, through the agency of the coal merchant and the rest, is brought to the hands of the persons who are actually going to use it, the stokers who are going to put it on the furnace of a factory or the householder who is going to cook his dinner or warm his room. In that period it is only moved about, and it is not wealth until it is actually on the fire. That is a point that is constantly overlooked. Until it is actually burning it does not really do anything for the human welfare, and if you could suppose that by some means it is prevented from getting on the fire the whole coal industry would come to an end. If there was anything that could take the place of it and induce people to prefer putting that substance in their furnaces, there would be no more coal, and the whole thing would come to an end. The last stage is as indispensable as all the other stages. The stage of consumption is as necessary for the creation of wealth as everything else. It is a pleasing theory that the householder, when he takes a pair of tongs and puts a lump of coal on his fire, is increasing wealth as much as the coal-miner who has hewn that same piece of coal out of the seam, but it is true. Until it gets on the fire it is not wealth, because it does not minister to the human welfare. Take, for example, a case which has been noticeable in the last few years—the luxurious carriages of the rich. There must have been at one time plenty of these carriages, which are now wholly without any use whatever and wholly valueless, merely because they are no longer in use. They are as good carriages as ever they were. They are perfectly good, but they do not come into use, and therefore they are no longer part of the wealth of the country and will not be unless they are broken up again into something else.
If all that is true, what you really have to test all your fiscal proposals by is do they minister to the ultimate amount of
things which people have in use and consumption in the country. For example, do the Imperial Preference and the safeguarding of industries really increase the wealth of the country in that sense? Imperial Preference, as proposed in this Bill, may pass the test because this Imperial Preference is achieved by reducing duties, and therefore by increasing the flow of wealth into the country and increasing the number of things that people have in use and consumption. But when I come to the safeguarding of industries I feel considerable misgiving. How can this possibly increase the wealth of the country? It is said you are going to preserve the Nottingham lace industry, but you are going to do that at someone's cost. Someone is to go without something, or else you are diminishing their demanding power. That means that, supposing they go without the lace, you do not do any good to your Nottingham lace people and you impoverish them, because poverty is essentially privation, and if they cannot have it they are so much the worse off. If on the other hand you are diminishing their demanding power you are only making unemployment worse somewhere else in proportion to the good you are doing to the Nottingham people, because as far as I can see, by restriction you cannot possibly be increasing the amount of goods, the amount of property, and the amount that is actually in use and consumption among the people. I should not have thought the lace matter worth detaining the House over if it were quite clear that the Government were not going further on the same dangerous path. I am sure, unless you can bring all your fiscal proposals to that test, unless you can show in respect to them that they actually increase the wealth of the country, they ought not to be entertained.
All restrictive proposals are mischievous. They already prey on the wealth of the country and therefore must in the end make everyone within the country worse off. It is the same whether you restrict by excluding imports of cheap labour or whether you break machinery as the old frameworkers did. The industrial result is the same. The safeguarding of industry is only another form of frame-breaking. If you diminish
the cheaper supply you diminish the general wealth of the community, and therefore you diminish the general spending and saving power of an industry and produce unemployment and all the evils we suffer from. It is the same, of course, with all the restrictive regulations of the trade unions of which we so often hear complaint. They all operate in the same way. They are all a diminution of wealth. They are all hostile to the creation of wealth, and therefore to the prosperity of industry. I hope the Government will try to add to what they have already done for industry and commerce the important service of making abundance the test of what they propose in respect to it. I know that many very abe men believe they can achieve abundance by stabilising it and if that can be shown there is no doubt a defence for interfering with the course of trade — if you can really show that in the long run and on the whole you increase the production of wealth and increase the quantity of goods in consumption. But mere restriction, mere restraint, mere limiting of imports, mere regarding imports as something that comes in in a flood and disturbs the course of industry in a country, is madness. What we want to do is to gather together all the wealth that can be obtained, all the wealth we can produce, all the wealth that the free imports of the whole world can pour in. I hear with impatience talk of an adverse balance, talk of imports exceeding exports, and the like, as though finally, somehow or another we existed by selling to people and not by consuming, as if the ultimate end of wealth was to find a market, and not to find goods which you can use and enjoy. All these ways of thinking of the industrial process are to put the cart before the horse.
5.0 P.M.
I want to say a word of warning that, in two respects, the financial arrangements of this year seem open to criticism. They are open to criticism, first of all because the burden of taxation is too heavy, and the task of economy has not been sufficiently zealously undertaken. They are also open to criticism because a beginning has been made with the Safeguarding of Industries, which, though trifling in the present case, might easily
be a precedent for a very dangerous proposal by which the flow of wealth which comes to this country might be impeded and hindered. I honour and respect all that the Prime Minister has done in bringing various classes of labour together. He has put "Co-operation and mutual help" as the first watchword of his policy. Let him add the twin watchword of "Abundance," and the belief that to make people rich is to make people happy. Let him welcome, therefore, all the goods that may come from wherever they come.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said we set up mills in China by cheap labour, and he deprecated that. I say nothing about grounds of humanity. There may or may not be good ground for criticising the conditions of Chinese labour from the point of view of humanity, but, from the point of view of our own economic wealth, there can be no doubt at all that the great produce of cheap labour from China is just as beneficial as the discovery of a new machine which pours wealth into our country at a cheap rate. Do let us make that the great standard of our fiscal policy—shall we have abundance, shall we have wealth? May the Prime Minister, who has tried to be the artificer of peace, also be the harbinger of plenty.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not often take part in Debate here, but I feel I should be wanting in my duty as an old Free Trade advocate if I did not endeavour to state the position as I see it. The Noble Lord has re-stated the position of the Unionist Free Trader. I will re-state the position, as I see it, of the Radical Free Trader. And may I say one word of criticism with regard to the very able speech the Noble Lord has just made? I was glad to hear what he said about the question of free imports, but I did not quite understand how he makes a distinction in regard to the preferential tariff. The point which the Noble Lord did not touch, I think, was that when this reduction in the tax on raisins was made in regard to our Colonies, there was no such reduction on the raisins from the other parts of the world. I call that Protection, and I call it Protection in its worst form. The worst form of Protection is the Protection that touches the food of the poor. I have heard that the Prime Minister has made the pledge, and
fulfilled the pledge, of not putting any tax on food, but is not this tax on raisins a tax on food?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The tax has been lowered.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I know it has been reduced, but reduced for the purpose of making the raisins from the Colonies more saleable to the people of this country than the raisins of other countries, and that is Protection. I cannot possibly see any more argument in favour of a preferential tariff for raisins because they come from the Colonies, than for one on wheat because it comes from the Colonies. I can imagine my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer drawing this picture. We have in Canada, as I have seen, boundless land reaching uninterruptedly to the horizon, able to produce the best wheat in the world, and all these vast regions are in the possession of men of our own kith and kin. On the other side, there is the Argentine, from which we get a large quantity of wheat, and it is intolerable that a true British citizen can allow the wheat of these foreign countries to compete successfully with that grown by our own kith and kin. That is the straight road to dear food. So long as I have a voice, I shall raise it against anything by any Government or by any party which is going to bring back the wolf of hunger within the doors of our people. I see my right hon. Friend jeers.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not jeers!

Mr. O'CONNOR: What shall I call it?—makes grimaces! I regret very much that, having to make a speech in a hurry, I did not supply myself with what has been for years my guide and testament on Free Trade, the collection of the great series of speeches made by my right hon. Friend when he was careering Manchester and its environs—speeches which I compared at the time, and still compare, with some of the utterances of my great countryman Edmund Burke; speeches which I mournfully contrast with the present attitude and grimaces of the right hon. Gentleman. In defence of what I consider the entirely untenable proposition, that you can begin by taxing one kind of food and calling it Colonial Preference, and can prevent yourself from going down the slippery slope of taxing all kinds of food, including the food of labour—that, I am told, is the pledge of the present Prime
Minister. He has pledged himself that he will never consent to the taxation of food.
The Prime Minister is an honourable man. They are all honourable men. But the Prime Minister is not eternal, and he is not without colleagues. There are two or three of his most powerful colleagues who still adhere to the slogan of the prophet of this new dispensation, the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] My hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) would not be true to that eager zeal which an Irishman always brings to his party if he did not cheer that. There they are! Where does the Foreign Secretary stand on the question? On the same ground as his father. Where does his brother and colleague stand on the question? On the same ground as his father. Where does that very subtle, very able and tireless little man—I mean no disrespect—little, I mean, in stature, and not in intelligence— the Colonial Secretary stand? He nailed his colour to the full Protectionist mast, even in the last Parliament when his party had been beaten on it, and had given it over. They are colleagues of the Prime Minister. I have seen one Liberal Prime Minister replaced by another, and one Tory Prime Minister replaced by another. Have I any guarantee that the present Prime Minister will not be replaced by one of his colleagues? If there is to be a Tory party in power he is a perfectly straight man, but he is not superior to conditions, and I do not take the pledge of the Prime Minister or any man, Prime Minister or otherwise, as any guarantee against a change of politics, of political fortunes, of political convictions.
Therefore, I must treat this policy on its logical merits, which are, that if you begin with the taxation of one kind of food, you are threatened with the taxation of another. I hear a great deal about the position of Canada on this subject. I wonder if many people know what the position of Canada is. In the Conference, to which so many references have been made, it is implied, if not stated, that Canada demanded this preference. Canada did not demand this preference. Canada declared—and it adheres to the declaration—"We demand absolute freedom with regard to our own
fiscal policy, and we must give the same to you. We ask nothing from you except what appears to your own good sense and statesmanship good for your country." And is all Canada Protectionist? Most of the Liberals are Free Traders. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the greatest Liberal they ever had, received the gold medal of the Cobden Club.

Mr. HURD: He maintained a high protective tariff.

Lord H. CECIL: The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) forgets that Sir Wilfrid Laurier received that gold medal for inaugurating a system of Preference by a reduction of taxation.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I know all about the career of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I quite accept what the Noble Lord has said. Many a, Canadian ardent Free Trader deplores the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier came under the influence of their only large Protectionist party in Canada, namely, the manufacturers of Ontario, and of those people who use the words "Imperial Unity," and the rest to mask and cover the desire of getting rich by a tariff, at the expense of their countrymen. What almost makes me see red— well, some of my friends have done something lately to keep me from feeling anything but a very mild form of violet rather than red—is when I hear Labour Members talking rank Protection. I only speak to-day that I may make my position as an unconverted and unconvertible Free Trader clear to all parties. I would sooner vote for a Conservative Free Trader than a Protectionist of any other party
I read a speech the other day by Mr. Meighen, Leader of the Opposition in Canada. There is a duty of, say, 35 per cent. against Germany and 25 per cent. against us. They made it 25 per cent. against us because they were assured that 25 per cent. would keep out most of our goods. Mr. Meighen, the other day, made a loud, eloquent wail about the lowness of the preferential tariff in our favour as interfering with the interests of the Canadian manufacturers. Protection always means the selfish man trying to get rich at the expense of the community. Take Australia. There they have a very able man as Prime Minister, one of our countrymen, Mr. Bruce. He
is one of the best-groomed and one of the best-spoken and most genteel young men I have ever met. He is a very charming man, just the kind of man who makes a bad case look respectable.

HON. MEMBERS: Speak up! Turn this way!

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should turn this way and speak to the unconverted? We cannot hear him.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I apologise, my voice is not quite as strong as it was. It was by inadvertence that I had turned my back on hon. Members opposite. I think they stand more in need of my arguments than do my hon. Friends behind me. What did Mr. Bruce say? I do not know whether this is a case of the hors d'œuvres. I have seen in Scandinavian countries people eating as much of the hors d'œuvres as would supply a Britisher's full appetite. Perhaps that is how Mr. Bruce regards the proposals of the Government. What they really want is full Protection, a preferential tariff on wool, a preferential tariff on meat, and a preferential tariff on wheat. It is a great world-wide conspiracy for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.
Take another point of view. Take Protection in its political sense. What hon. Members above the Gangway on this side want, and what I want, is that we shall have the masses of the people in greater comfort and in greater power, because it is power in politics that produces the result. Will Protection help in this respect? I have seen Protection working. I do not want to name any country in particular, lest I should rouse any of the susceptibilities of countries where I have nothing but friends. What is the working of Protection, politically? The working of Protection, politically, is that it creates millionaires, multi-millionaires, billionaires. When you have the multi-millionaire in politics, you have the political boss. What can these millions of workpeople in these countries do against the gigantic power of wealth on the railroads and in the banks, when it is coupled with threats of dismissal and with influences which corrupt and deceive the workmen?
Talk about Protection as being consistent with the existence or the growth of the Labour party! I say to every Labour man in this country and every
Liberal and every broad-minded Tory— many of whom are as thoroughly desirous of elevating the masses of the people as we are; their hearts are all right, but their minds are wrong—how can you hope to promote the growth of the political power of the masses, and through the growth of that power to improve their conditions, if you put the weapon of Protection into the hands of a small, wealthy, selfish minority of the nation? Using words without, I hope, any conscious rhetoric or exaggeration, I say that Protection is a collar of steel which wealth will put around the neck of labour, and it will squeeze and squeeze until it makes labour paralysed. I want to save the masses of the people from the wolf of hunger, which Free Trade drove from their doors in the hungry forties. It is because I want to see the masses of the people no longer under the heel of selfish passions, because I want our political struggles to be conflicts of ideals and not a struggle of sordid and selfish appetite, that I have felt it to be my duty to speak against this Budget, and to give expression to my views as an old Free Trader in the cause of freedom and of the masses of the people.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is with very great diffidence that I rise to address the House for the first time, and I beg for a very full measure of that indulgence which the House always shows to a Member on such an occasion. I feel it to be a great honour to speak after the "Father of the House." I should not dare to criticise anything that he has said, and I shall, therefore, content myself with saying that I completely disagree with nearly everything that he has said. If I did attempt to criticise him, as a very young Member, I might be called to order for not keeping within the terms of the Bill.
This Bill has been debated very thoroughly, and I have listened carefully and with great interest to what has been said. I will do my best not to indulge in repetition of the arguments already used. The main points on which the Bill has been attacked by the Opposition are those which most directly affect industry—the Silk Duties, the McKenna Duties, the duty on lace, and Imperial Preference in a lesser degree. With reference to these duties, more especially the first three, we on this side have been
accused of breaking our pledges, and attempting "to bring in Protection by the back door." I deny that, and it is for this reason I am speaking. Imperial Preference has nothing to do with Protection. The mistake that many people make in opposing Imperial Preference is that they are unable to understand that Imperial Preference means taking taxes off goods coming into this country from the Empire, and not putting them on. Imperial Preference brings us one step nearer to real Free Trade within the Empire, which is a very desirable thing. At the present time we have Free Trade with nobody. We have free imports, but we have not Free Trade.
The McKenna Duties were put on for revenue purposes, and they have been re-imposed for that object. I do not deny that they are protective in operation. It would be foolish to deny that. They have been part of our fiscal system for many years, and they are re-imposed as an old duty. In my election address—to show that I have not broken faith with my constituents—I referred to the foolishness of the Socialist party in doing away with these duties. On the back of my address I put ten points of Conservative policy. The second of these points was the re-imposition of the McKenna Duties and the Safeguarding of Industries. That makes it quite clear that, as far as I was concerned, that was part of the Conservative policy.
The Silk Duties are not protective. If they are Protection, they are Protection gone mad, because they are taxes on raw material, on articles which are not produced in this country. In the case of artificial silk, which we do produce, the import tax is cancelled by a countervailing duty. One hon. Member called the Silk Duties protection of the foreigner. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it as protection for our own people and protection for the foreigner at the same time. It is necessary to find new methods of taxation, and that necessity is met, to a great extent, by the Budget. As that is necessary, I believe the Silk Duty to be quite a good tax, as far as any new tax can be good. There is no doubt that silk is a luxury. No one can make out that either silk or artificial silk are necessities. Anything in which silk is employed is a luxury. Therefore, this is not a bad tax.
I am convinced that the Silk Tax will not damage our trade. There is a factory in my constituency which uses a very large amount of silk. Therefore, when this tax was first broached I made close inquiries as to what would happen in regard to that factory. As far as I can make out this tax will not damage them in any way. It may even confer some slight benefits on them. There will be some difficulty over the drawbacks. We may expect that; but if the Customs officials administer them sympathetically, I believe they will work out quite easily in practice. It is suggested that a drawback should be given on the certificate of the manufacturer that tax has been paid on the silk coming into this country. That will be almost impossible. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would name a definite date after which drawback will be given on all silk goods exported, it would simplify things to a considerable extent and make it much easier for the manufacturer.
I have made inquiries as to whether this duty will mean a large amount of extra clerical work, and I find that it will not cause extra clerical work, because the particulars that will be required are already required by the foreigner in the case of goods that are exported at the present time. If I thought that this Silk Duty would injure the factory in my constituency which uses silk, I should not be able to vote for it. It is because I am convinced that it will not damage that factory that I shall vote for it. This factory uses silk in the making of lace. It is a thoroughly efficient factory and is thoroughly up-to-date. The articles which it makes are very good. This factory will get benefit from the safeguarding of lace. I am very glad of that, because it is a factory which deserves all the help it can get at the present time. It is only working about one week in four. I am glad that one of the first effects of the safeguarding of industries under this Budget will be that this factory will be safeguarded in regard to the lace which is made there. Of course, I grant that the duties on articles under the Safeguarding of Industries provisions are protective, but no one can deny that it was made clear at the Election that safeguarding would be granted to certain industries provided that they fulfilled
certain conditions. In the main this industry fulfils those conditions.
There is one other point to which I wish to refer.
This Budget has been referred to as the "rich man's Budget," but it is worth noticing that not a single newspaper described it as a "rich man's Budget on the morning after the Budget speech, and it took the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. MacDonald) about 24 hours before he discovered it and produced it in his speech the next afternoon. The only thing which lends any colour to the suggestion is the reduction in the Super-tax. But the critics of this do not say anything about the reduction of the Super-tax being counterbalanced by the increase in the Death Duties, and I am sure that the great majority of Super-tax payers do not like this alteration. I wish myself that the Chancellor had left both Death Duties and Super-tax as they were, because I do not believe that the increase in the Death Duties is sound. We all know what happens when a private individual spends capital, and the Death Duties are a form of capital levy.
I am sorry that the Chancellor thought it necessary to make this alteration. The only thing that can justify it is the importance of getting more money into circulation to assist industry, but I am afraid that in the end it will not be obtained by an increase in the Death Duties and decrease in Super-tax, for the simple reason that a large amount of the money received by this decrease will go into the pockets of the insurance companies. With this one exception, I believe this to be a thoroughly good Bill and I give it my most hearty support. I agree with all that has been said by the two hon. Members opposite on the subject of economy. It is necessary to exercise every possible economy in future. I hope that in the next Budget there will be a considerable reduction of expenditure, and I should very much like to see a reduction in the tax on the poor man's luxuries—I mean his beer and his tobacco.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: As one of the new Members of this House, I wish to congratulate, on behalf of the whole House, the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) who has addressed the House for the first
time. I have been wondering, as a new Member, what would be the collective effect of the wisdom of some 200 odd people sitting on the opposite benches when it was brought to bear upon the details of this Bill. It is quite clear that all our arguments and suggestions, which were advanced during the late sittings in the course of the last few weeks, have availed very little towards altering the fundamental structure of this Bill. There has been a number of minor alterations. From time to time in the course of the Debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted here and there that suggestions put forward were of constructive value and they have been incorporated in the Bill. That was done particularly in the case of the schedules in reference to silk and artificial silk. Perhaps the chief alteration has come as the result of suggestions made from hon. Members on his own side—that which modifies the operation of the proposed increase of Death Duties affecting the landed estates of the country, but in the main the Bill goes on the Statute Book in the form in which it was originally introduced.
We have tried to secure important modifications in respect of practically all the important parts of the Bill. We have tried to get the Tea Duty further reduced. We have offered unqualified opposition to the re-imposition of the McKenna duties. We have in the main opposed, on the ground of national interest, the introduction of the new Silk Duties and offered substantial opposition and criticism to the proposed Imperial Preference, but in respect of these particular features of this Bill, the indirect taxation, we have been in the main able to secure little or no alteration. The question which we have asked again and again, in various forms, was, Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Bill be prepared to admit any modification which would really go to the relief of the great mass of the workers? Would he be prepared to reduce any of the indirect taxes on commodities in general use by the workers of the country? The answer to that question again and again was a direct negative. The Bill makes it clear that in this year, by the present administration, nothing is to be done in the way of reducing the burdens of taxation on the great mass of the workers of the country
so far as the policy of the Government is concerned.
With regard to the second great part of the Bill, the direct taxation, we have seen important modifications relieving the burden upon the well-to-do section of the community, and no analysis from the Socialist or Labour point of view has availed to alter the attitude of the Chancellor in this respect. We have put forward again and again proposals both from the point of view of improving the productive wealth of the country and enlarging the consuming power of the citizens of the country. In our judgment this policy of relieving the well-to-do through the process of direct taxation as proposed is most disadvantageous. We have not only brought economic analysis to bear from time to time, but we have sought to apply definite ethical principles as a test of indirect taxation. There has been considerable expression of indignation in regard to this particular group of taxes, but all this has availed nothing. The only substantial result of all the criticism in the House was a change in the Death Duties, the change which will exempt owners of agricultural estates from the operation of the increases laid down in this Bill.
I would like to work out in my mind what might have been the fortunes of this Bill if, instead of having a Conservative Government, the Labour Government of last year had this opportunity. I am clear that we should not have been discussing the revival of the McKenna Duties, and the special form of taxation on silk. I am clear that we should have had some very definite further reduction in respect of indirect taxation which affects the great mass of consumers throughout the country, and if inadvertently a Labour and Socialist Chancellor had gone out of his way in a Budget speech to make reference to the matter of widows' pensions, I am certain that he would have made that reference in terms of much more fundamental generosity than anything included in this Bill. The fundamental factor which stands out in his Bill in any survey is, as a whole, that the Chancellor has deliberately made it the policy of this Bill to increase the purchasing powers of the well-to-do.
It is agreed on all sides that the economic result of this Bill on the com-
munity of British citizens will be to increase the purchasing power of a small group of wealthy people, and at the very best to leave the purchasing power of the great mass of the people as it is, though very probably it will be diminished as a consequence of this Bill. Hon. Members on this side are bound to oppose the general tendency of the Bill. Analysing the industrial system, and the system of land ownership, built up during the last 200 years in this country, we are bound to draw the conclusion that that system in operation, without any great interference by Government processes, is bound logically to lead to very great inequality in the distribution of the nation's wealth. When you have concentrated ownership of capital, with something like a couple of thousand people owning in perpetuity under the law of the land one-half of the land, it is as clear as that night follows day that under that system, working itself out in terms of wealth, producing profit interest and wages, it must logically lead to very grave inequality in wealth distribution. That in itself is a social evil, and one of the primary considerations of any Government should be to check this tendency to inequality in distribution, and any Government should be judged by its efforts in this particular direction.
Therefore, we offer a fundamental criticism of this Bill, because at a time when the wealth of the country has been shown, in the terms of the Income Tax returns, to be concentrated in comparatively few hands, we have a Bill brought forward to make rich people richer and to leave the great masses of working-class consumers as poor as, or even poorer than, they are now. With regard to the Death Duties, it seems extraordinary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has again helped a section of well-to-do people. If the Death Duties had to be tampered with at all, we would have said that it would have been better to have exempted altogether, or to have reduced the amount of tax payable on, very small estates. We have tried to get a reduction of duty on estates under £1,000. To sum up, we feel very strongly that the benefits of this Budget are going definitely into the hands of well-to-do people, and that the burdens upon the great masses of the workers are being
increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is entirely honest in working out the political philosophy which he has adopted. He believes that it would be well for England if the rich were made richer and if the poor people were made to bear these burdens. That is to say, he is sustaining the practice of the Conservative party as it has been developed during the last 200 years. He believes thoroughly in that kind of policy and he is giving it a thorough-going application in this Budget. The country will judge this Government, not by the speeches its Members make, but by the deeds that they do. For our part we definitely realise that nothing can do more to justify the presence of a Labour and Socialist party in this House than this Bill, and nothing will do so much to guarantee the future of our party than the passage of this Bill.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I do not propose to follow the last speaker, but to support the remarks of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young). The right hon. Gentleman made a most excellent speech, showing that a reduction of expenditure is the most important problem that we have to face at the present time. We are still thinking in millions and millions. We cannot recover our national earning power unless we reduce expenditure. This is the second year of successive increases of expenditure. In 1923–24 the expenditure was £789,000,000. The Labour Government increased that expenditure, and I quite understand the reason. But there is no reason why a Conservative Government should increase expenditure still further to the amount of £799,500,000. The increase in the two years has been £10,500,000. It is a mountain of expenditure which we cannot bear at the present time. It appears to me that the increase of expenditure is almost becoming a habit. Practical economy is what I have in mind. In His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne at the end of last year there was the following:
Economy in every sphere is imperative if we are to regain our industrial and commercial prosperity.
Those are, indeed, important words, and with the increase in our expenditure I can hardly congratulate even our Prime Minister on having carried into effect that passage in the Speech from the Throne. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests a Cabinet Committee.
I have always understood that Cabinet Ministers were so busy in their own Departments that they had not time to look into the full details of the reduction of national expenditure and of economy in every Department. In my opinion, the Government can do more to remedy the economic ills of the people through a system of rigid economy in public expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget speech that he would be content with a reduction of £10,000,000 in the Supply expenditure. He also stated, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), who asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he anticipated that the £10,000,000 of reduction in the Supply Services would take effect in respect of the Estimates for the current year that
The answer is in the negative. I do not exclude the possibility of effecting some savings even on the current year's Estimates, but in the Budget speech I was speaking of an overhaul of the Estimates for next year. I am not, of course, giving any pledge that such a reduction will be effected. I only set it up as an object of extraordinary national importance towards which the Government in all Departments must earnestly strive.
I cannot help thinking that the Chancellor's reply to that question is not very satisfactory, as far as the Conservative party is concerned. I feel that more should be done. The question is, bow to do it? In reply to the right hon. Member for Norwich the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
Where can we obtain it?
I remember that two or three years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) stated in a Budget speech that we were getting near the bone. We are nearer the bone now than we were then. At the same time I contend that expenditure can be reduced. You have your two services—the Supply Services and the Consolidated Fund Service. Let me take the latter first. The right hon. Member for Norwich referred to the necessity for using our credit in the most advantageous way so as to carry out our conversion scheme. He mentioned that there were £1,000,000,000 in the next four or five years to be converted, and spoke of the necessity for converting that at lower interest rate6 than those of previous conversions. I go almost further than my right hon.
Friend. We have to look at the necessity, during the next four or five years, for converting £3,000,000,000, not only the £1,000,000,000 that becomes actually due, but the £2,000,000,000 of the National Five per Cent. War Loan. I believe it can be done, especially when we remember that our forefathers 100 years ago carried out successful conversions; 10 years after Waterloo we were able to convert those loans and bring the credit of this country on a 3¼ per cent. basis. I fully realise that the gold standard may affect this to a certain extent, but we should be prepared to meet the conversions with the suggestions which have been so ably put forward by the right hon. Member for Norwich.
Now I come to the Supply Services. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Bennett) made an able speech on the Budget, which showed that there were many Departments in which there was a possibility of a reduction in expenditure. The Supply Services are fourfold up compared with pre-War days. I have had the honour of sitting on the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee for about four years, and I have missed only one or two of the Committee meetings during that period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not want any cheers, for I have done it as a duty. I feel, in putting forward certain proposals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I am putting forward something of which I have had a certain amount of experience. Take the Government Trading Departments. I do not know whether hon. Members watch the Government Trading Departments. I see no reason why farm settlements should be carried on. Why should we lose money on the purification of mussels? I know that the Financial Secretary fully realises these points, as we had the honour of serving under him as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee last year. Then there are such things as the stud farm in the Irish Free State, which is losing money this year. Then there is seed potatoes. Why should the Chancellor have to face the cost of running such a Department. You have to watch all these things if you want a reduction of expenditure.
Let me come to other points. There was recently issued a White Paper which all hon. Members should study. I
believe ft is called the "Pilditch White Paper," after the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Anybody who studied that Paper will see that expenditure can be reduced, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say. Take the Army. There are 22,800 fewer men in the Army to-day than there were before the War. But what is the position at the War Office? There are 1481 more staff at the War Office. Take the Navy. It is even worse than the Army. It has 45,400 fewer men than in pre-War days. But the Admiralty has 2,702 more staff. Those are small points, but I am confident that a reduction of expenditure can be made, and must be made, if we are to see the economic position of this country more satisfactory.
6.0 P.M.
There is one other point I wish to raise, and that is in connection with Part I of the Finance Bill. It deals with the Excise, the Customs, the McKenna Duties, Imperial Preference and, in fact, all the financial trade part of the Bill. Our total of imports over exports is £165,000,000 for the five months, and if you work that out for the year you find that the total of imports over exports in a full year would work out at £396,000,000. Last year our total imports over exports was £344,000,000, and comparing the first figure with the last figure I have given, there is an excess of £54,000,000 over 1924. These excessive imports are paid for by invisible exports. We used to have a credit balance. I believe that credit balance, if it has not disappeared, is disappearing. Our credit balance in 1913 was £181,000,000; in 1920 it was £252,000,000, in 1922 £155,000,000, in 1923 £97,000,000, and in 1924 £29,000,000. For 1925, if the figures I have given are more or less correct, they might show a debit balance. It is imperative that we should seriously consider these figures if we are going to survive. What do they mean? They mean that we have been living, or are living, on our past activities. We are living on our capital. A very important speech was made recently in New York by the British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Esmé Howard, and the House will forgive me if I read an extract from this speech, which illustrates the importance of the figures I have just given in relation to our whole life in this
country. Speaking on 22nd May, Sir Esmé Howard said:
Now if Great Britain cannot sell her products abroad, she cannot, of course, continue to buy raw materials and manufactured goods in the United States in the same heavy quantities as has been he custom. It is I am sure, fully realised that Great Britain could scarcely carry on an unfavourable trade balance with the United States for ever, and yet pay the £32,000,000 odd per annum required to meet her indebtedness to the United States Government. We intend to meet our just debts, but there may come a time when, unless the world situation changes for the better, unless we can return to something like pre-War conditions of credit and trade, it would be impossible both to make heavy purchases of raw material from the United States and to pay the interest on our debt. It does not require a high-class mathematician to see that. The purchases would obviously have to be cut down.
Those are very important and impressive words from the British Ambassador to the United States, and they are words which every Member of this House ought to study. There was also a very important article in the "Times" recently, entitled "Export or Starve," which should be read by all Members of this House, and should be not only broadcast throughout the country, but explained to the people of the country. All this is wrapped up in the question of our expenditure. Our adverse trade is affected by the increased expenditure. It affects everything. It affects every investment. It affects our foreign investments and affects our foreign exchanges. Do not let us shrink from these important problems. Let us face them, and face them at once. Do not let us wait, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, for next year's Estimates to reduce by £10,000,000. Let us deal with them at once, and I feel confident if we deal with them in the right and proper spirit, we will be able to get expenditure down, and it will help to meet the ills of the people.

Captain BENN: I cordially agree with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), and with all that has been said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young). We must reduce expenditure, but when we come to the consideration of the practical way in which large blocks of expenditure can be reduced, we get very little support from the hon. Member opposite or his friends. I do not think that it is in seed potatoes you are going to
make a very signal reduction of expenditure.

Sir F. WISE: I quite agree that such matters as seed potatoes are nothing, but there are other ways. The Chancellor must not use a pruning knife—he must use an axe.

Captain BENN: What I had in mind particularly was the building programme for the Navy. How many of the hon. Member's friends will support a reduction in that? I know he himself is a man of independent and courageous views. Would he say, when a great change for the better has been made by the Labour Prime Minister in Europe, and when the present Foreign Secretary claims that the atmosphere is improving under his schemes for agreement, that this is the time to produce a new programme of construction, in view of the fact that we have already a load to carry due to the wholly unnecessary laying down of five ships last year by the Labour Government.

Sir F. WISE: The Navy provides security for trade. We cannot carry on trade unless we have security, and it is essential that the Navy should give that security.

Captain BENN: That is just the point. As soon as one suggests anything which will really reduce expenditure, the hon. Member is not there. If it is a question of a stud farm or of seed potatoes or mussel beds, he is absolutely hot upon it, but when we come to something which means a real reduction, unfortunately he is not willing to row in that galley I think when people have forgotten the eloquence and brilliance with which the Chancellor has conducted this Budget through the House —the effect of which quickly evaporates— the first thing they will ask is: Why are we spending so much money? Is it not possible to reduce expenditure? Are we at an end of expenditure for this year? We shall be very glad to hear that the Government is not only not proposing to produce a programme but is not going to make any commitments this year which will involve immense increases in the future. We are aware that it is possible to lay down an extensive programme of shipbuilding which in a particular financial year will cost but little, but
will involve future costs. That is what happened last year. Then, a very small sum was involved, but this year we have a sum of nearly £2,000,000 in reference to that commitment, and we may have, if the Committee which is at present sitting reports shortly, a tiny commitment which will involve enormous commitments in future years.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Did not the hon. and gallant Member's, party propose to make a reduction of the Navy in April, 1914, which might have had disastrous results?

Captain BENN: The hon. Baronet is incorrigible. Before the War he consistently advocated Tariff Reform for this country. As a matter of fact, the safety of the country was secured because it was a Free Trade country and had the ships and money which enabled us to carry on through the War, and to finance the poor Protectionist countries who found their resources at an end when they were under the stress of war. However, this is going even beyond the very wide limits of a Third Reading Debate.

Mr. SKELTON: Does the hon. and gallant Member include the United States among the poor Protectionist countries?

Captain BENN: The United States is the greatest Free Trade country in the world. It is a country which from ocean to ocean has no tariff whatever, and Free Trade in a country with its enormous natural resources, has produced great wealth. However these are merely the interchanges of a street corner meeting. The second question which will be asked in reference to the Budget is: Are we at the end of the taxation of the year? Never so far as I remember, except once during the War, has there been more than one Budget in a year. But the taxpayer is not sure if this is to be the last Finance Bill of this year, and many interests will be disappointed if it is the last Finance Bill. We had introduced in the middle of the Bill a New Clause, and a second meeting of the Committee of Ways and Means took place on that New Clause and we must ask the Financial Secretary to give us some forecast on this point. Is this the last Finance Bill of the year?
The Prime Minister told us that if any of these new duties which are being
asked for were granted, they would be embodied in new Finance Bills. There are committees sitting on half-a-dozen trumpery inquiries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Steel!"] No, that is not trumpery, but we are told that people are preparing to make applications in other trades, such as hosiery and pottery. Some of the inquiries which are going on are nearly completed, and the taxpayer would like to know if more taxes are to be introduced as a result of decisions in favour of duties in these industries. It is a rather important question to the taxpayer because he does not know whether he is at the end of his payments even yet. As hon. Members have pointed out, there is the question of the steel industry, which is said to be asking for an inquiry. Is the taxpayer to be faced not only with the enormous demands in the present Budget, but later in the year with a new Budget including a duty upon steel involving in itself a considerable rise in the cost of various commodities.

Sir H. CROFT: What commodities?

Captain BENN: We must leave the Tariff Reform argument over to some other more suitable occasion. I have referred to the Budget that may yet be, and I turn to the Budget that is. There are three criticisms made against it. First, that it is a rich man's Budget, second that it is a Protective Budget, and third that it is a Budget which is apparently framed without any regard to the question of unemployment. I need not develop further what has been said with unanswerable force in support of the description of the Budget as a rich man's Budget. The people singled out for relief are people of means. It does not require rhetoric or special pleading to impress that fact upon us. There is the flat rate deduction in Income Tax which will undoubtedly help some people of moderate means. It will help me, but it is not graduated according to means, with the result that the relief on the higher incomes will be much greater in cash than the relief on the smaller incomes.

Mr. CADOGAN: Then it is not a vote-catching Budget?

Captain BENN: That is a debating point. I cannot speak on behalf of a party which has been exceedingly success-
ful in that respect, and I think the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) will realise that his comment does not controvert what I am saying, namely, that it is a few people in the main who come in for the bounty of the Chancellor in the Budget. The only concession that has been made in the course of all these long Debates, although demands have been made for increased allowances to children and dependants and many other deserving classes, was that of £500,000 to the landlords, and that was made in a very re markable way. We were sitting here in the middle of the night—[An HON. MEMBER: "Serves you right!"]—and we suddenly observed that the benches opposite were beginning to fill up. A very distinguished ex-Cabinet Minister appeared, and took his place, with one or two of his colleagues, who are not known for their warm admiration and enthusiasm for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A little Amendment was formally moved, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, turning his back on us, mumbled out some words, and if it had not been that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was present, and was vigilant, we should have had, at two o'clock in the morning, the £500,000 handed over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the landed interests, and not another word said about it. Instead of that, the vigilance of my right hon. Friend at any rate forced the transaction into the light of day. That is the only concession, the only penny-piece, that was wrung from the Chancellor of the Exchequer from one end of the Budget discussions to the other.
As to the poorer classes, they have got nothing out of it. There is no reduction of any of the duties on the staple articles of food, but, as against that, there is a very considerable increase on articles of common consumption—I will talk of them later—lace, silk and some of the cheaper classes of things that come under the heading of the McKenna Duties. What is the defence? It is that the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer last year gave remission of indirect taxation, and, therefore, that the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer this year must give remission of direct taxation. That was the defence, but what does it mean? It means, in other words, "Your
Budget was a poor man's Budget, and, therefore, my Budget must be a rich man's Budget."
The second complaint that we have to make against this Budget is that it is Protectionist. We all know the recent history of the Protection issue in this country—the appeal in 1923 to the verdict of the electors, and the very decisive judgment that was given against the claim for Protection when it was very courageously and punctiliously put before them by the present Prime Minister. The verdict was an emphatic "No." In 1924 there was a second Election, and certainly the majority of people in this country understood that, although the old cumbersome procedure of safeguarding might be continued, there would be no such thing as general Protection if this Government was returned. Everybody believed that to be the case, but what is the fact? I observed—I have not the quotation in my hand—that the "Morning Post" yesterday, or the day before, said that there was no pledge that debarred the Government from putting any tax on anything except food. That is the interpretation of a letter sent by Professor Hewins.
I do not know at all, although I have pressed the Prime Minister and other Ministers to tell me, how far they are bound by the procedure of the famous White Paper, but how far they have got we do know. They have taxed hops, lace, and embroidery, common articles of clothing, and not only, under the new import duties, motor cars, musical instruments, and so on, but a vast number of accessories held to be connected with these things, such as lamps, cushions, engines, tools, leather, and so on. They have taxed musical instruments, not the most expensive sort, made in this country, but the poorer sort, the banjo, or the flute, or the dreadful things which form the joy of artisans in their leisure hours. I am not complaining of them at all; I am only saying that they are not always as welcome to their neighbours as are some other things. All these things, which are the ordinary common amusements of poor people, are taxed. Watches are taxed—not the rich man's watch, not the gold watch. The richer sort of watches are made in this country, the finest watches are made here, and they are not
taxed, but the watch that the workman uses, the 3s. 6d., the 5s., or the 7s. cheap watch, is taxed, and we complain of that.
Then in the catalogue we come to the Silk Duties, which, of course, are not Silk Duties at all, but duties on hats, and coats, and clothing, and bags, and umbrellas, and a myriad other things which are imported having any trace of silk in them. In fact, if we could get a complete alphabetical catalogue of the articles which are to be subject, after the 1st July, to Customs Duty, it would be a formidable document, and it would show the people of this country that taxes are being levied on so long a list of things coming from any country as practically to constitute a general tariff, or something which is a long way towards being a general tariff.
If one might diverge for a moment from the examination of the Budget itself into the realm of conjecture, it would be interesting to conjecture what would happen if certain things had fallen out otherwise. In 1923 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was denouncing Protection up and down the country with the same gladiatorial skill which he shows in advocating it in this House to-day, and there was one of what might be classed among the decisive battles at Leicester, where he was defeated by my hon. Friend the present Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and after a number of vicissitudes the Free Trade advocate finally entered the House of Commons as the Tariff Reform Chancellor of the Exchequer. A small circumstance seems to have altered his career. There was another great painter, called Whistler, who was destined for the Army, and he entered at Sandhurst, but failed in chemistry, and he was wont to explain his change of career by saying to a friend: "Madam, if silicon had been a gas, I should have been a soldier."

Colonel APPLIN: Might I point out that that occurred at West Point, in the United States of America?

Captain BENN: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for that correction, but I do not think it really affects the point of my story. If Leicester had been for Free Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been a Free Trader, and it is only by the grace of God and the assistance of the electors of Leicester
that he is not standing here to-day denouncing the Budget and tearing the Silk Taxes to ribbons. The great failure of the Budget is in regard to unemployment. It is a Budget which appears to us not to be framed at all, having in view the greatest, and almost the only, question of real importance to-day, namely, the question of employment. It is the one Bill in the year that does and can touch employment. It is the Bill that deals with our standard of exchange, which deals with our import and export trade, which deals with the burdens on industry and with the consuming power of the people. No proposals are comparable in importance with the Budget in its effect upon employment in the country.
Tested by this test, it cannot be said that the Budget is likely to decrease by a thousand men the vast and swollen numbers of the unemployed to-day. I know perfectly well what the Colonial Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade would say about the Protectionist parts of the Budget. They would say that tariffs do produce employment, and no doubt the hon. and gallant baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) takes the same view. Indeed, I know he does. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself would use that argument, but, in any case, he would not say it in connection with the tariffs that are imposed. When the late Chancellor of the Exchequer removed the McKenna Duties, it was proved in fact that the number of people employed in and about the trades from which the duty was removed was increased rather than reduced. As regards the Silk Duties, which are also Protective in character, as they emerge from the Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has budgetted for a reduction of consumption, so that we cannot suppose there is going to be an increase of employment in those trades. As regards the Lace Duties, it is not argued that they will produce anything more than a psychological effect on the lace industry, and I do not suppose that even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury himself would claim that they will have any material effect in putting men in work.
Then there is Preference, and there is the strange spectacle which is seen of some hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House going into the
Lobby in support of Imperial Preference. Our argument against the Preference was that in itself it was a small thing, but that in fact it would be interpreted as turning the fiscal policy of this country in a direction which must inevitably lead, as the right hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) said, to the taxation of food and raw material. I notice that the action of hon. Members who do support these Preferences in the Lobby has been noted by the Labour party in one part of Australia already. There was a telegram in the "Times" from Adelaide, which said that the leading members of the Labour party were gratified at the extension of the support given to Preference by British Labour, and that the local Press hoped that, as the movement grew, this support would be further extended. That means to say that the trifling Preferences upon raisins and currants, and so on, are not in the least what they mean. They want the support to be further extended, and they want it to be extended to the wheat, or the wool, or whatever it is which really forms the staple export from those countries. It is really either a mockery of their hopes, or else a very dangerous course for them to support a proposal of this kind, coming from the quarter from which it does.

Mr. FORD: What is wrong about helping the Empire?

Captain BENN: The hon. Member has not made one speech since he was lately returned, somewhat strangely, to this House, and I think he would be far better employed making a few coherent notes for the purpose of making a speech than in interrupting the speeches of other hon. Members.

Mr. FORD: Sir, I am somewhat discouraged from following that course, by having to listen to speeches like this.

Captain BENN: There is only one other point I wish to make in reference to this support for Preference which has come from some hon. Members above the Gangway. I believe that some of them suppose that you can, in some way, by tariffs, improve wages conditions or penalise bad conditions of labour. I do not know. That was the argument that I heard put forward, about better labour conditions, and of articles produced elsewhere under worse labour conditions. It was suggested
that we were justified in putting on a tariff against the one, and in favour of the other.

Mr. B. SMITH: Prohibition!

Captain BENN: That is a totally different thing. If it be thought that you can help to adjust labour conditions by means of a tariff, I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) asked in reference to the Lace Duty whether the preference would only be given on lace which was produced under fair conditions of labour, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer brushed aside the demand almost with contempt. The hon. Member for Dundee thereupon abandoned the idea of trying to use Preference to enforce labour conditions and supported us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, he went into the Lobby with us. The fact of the matter is that by tariffs you cannot possibly assist the great trades which are suffering to-day from unemployment. So far as the textile trade is concerned, everybody in the trade—some may say they will try it—knows that the Budget will do damage. Some think the damage will be little; some think it will be much. But there is nobody in the trade who is prepared to say that the imposing of a tax upon silk is going to help exports or the textile trade at all. As regards the coal trade, shipbuilding, engineering, or the other great export trades, everybody knows that they cannot be assisted by tariffs. Tariffs will only hinder them.
There are two ways in which trade might be affected by the Budget. There is the producer's side. There is the consumer's side. It might help the producer by reducing his costs, and the consumer by improving his consuming power. If you come to the producer, you will find that the Government by their proposal are not in any way assisting the producer to produce more cheaply. When we asked that the Income Tax payer should have preferential treatment, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury treated the idea with derision. He said it was a revolution to have regard to the destination of expenditure in deciding the rate of taxation, and what it should be. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that some, perhaps many, of the great changes which have been made in our
Income Tax law have been made in the face of determined expert opposition. I believe Mr. Gladstone once proved to the satisfaction of this House that it was impossible to differentiate between earned and unearned income for Income Tax purposes. But it was done by Lord Oxford. I believe Sir Henry Primrose produced a Report which showed that it was impossible to impose a Super-tax. But it was done! I do think, as regards Income Tax and the relative weight with which it falls upon income expended in different directions, that the Financial Secretary was going too far when he said that any such proposal as was put forward could not receive acceptance from the Treasury. So much for Income Tax.
Then as to pensions. A large part of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Budget was taken up with his description of the pensions scheme. As regards industry, however, what does the pension scheme do? It lays a charge for the benefit of the unfortunate upon industry which it ought not to lay. It takes a man who employs men and lays the heaviest charge upon him, and it exonerates altogether the rich man if he does not happen to employ anybody. It lays a charge upon industry whether industry makes profits or losses. The ultimate charge under this head may be £12,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000. In the third place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done nothing with his surplus to relieve the heavy burden of the rates which falls upon industry. Some of us think that, even if he had devoted the greater part of his surplus to relieving from the heavy burden of the rates some of the industries of this country, it would have done more direct good than all the distribution of £20,000,000 in the direction he has given it.
On the consumers' side, he has elected to relieve the rich. No doubt some of that relief may be reinvested. We do not know. A proposal that savings, whether in the form of reserves or general savings, should be taken into account, was put forward, but when we made that proposal for such a graduation of the tax it was rejected by the Treasury. Some of the money may go back into industry, but there is no evidence that all or the major part of it will go back into industry.
There is no evidence that the major part of it will not be spent on luxuries. The necessaries of life have not been provided for, and the poor consumer is left with greater burdens than ever to carry. There is nothing for him. He has got to pay a new load of indirect taxation in the shape of extra cost for his clothing and other things. His spending power is positively diminished by this Budget. Yet the spending power of the poor consumer is a very valuable element in industry in two ways. First of all, the man now buys less and worse clothes, boots, and the ordinary commodities that industries produce, and, secondly, when he is able to spend his money in that way he is directly increasing his own earning power. There is nothing more striking in the reports made during and after the War than the increase of the efficiency of the workers when such matters as good clothing, and good boots, and especially good food were put within their reach.
Some of us on these Benches have fought the Budget to its last stage. We have had a great many discussions. We have had a great many Divisions. I myself think that discussion is everything, though the present result may be practically nothing. It is true that no Government was ever saved by its Whips. Some hon. Members profess to look upon our efforts to examine the Budget with a sort of lofty contempt. It is the purpose of Parliament to examine these matters line by line, word by word; to examine important proposals which are put before the House. Our business is to focus public opinion upon this Budget. I think the more people understand it the less they like it. Certainly, leaving aside certain differences which may exist on the one side or the other of the Gangway on this side of the House, we may say that in the recent by-elections no marked approval of the Budget has been shown. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, let us take the votes cast. Take Ayr first. The votes cast in Ayr for the Government Budget were noticeably reduced from the last Election. Take the votes at East-bourne. The votes cast there for the Government Budget were notably reduced. Take the case of Oldham. It is even more striking. The number who voted against the Budget was 48,000; the number who voted for it was nil. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There was no candi-
date found who was prepared to take the field at Oldham on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Budget.
This Budget unduly favours the rich. Five years ago when the War was fresh in all our minds, if was agreed that many of the burdens of the War should be put upon the broad shoulders because the blood burden had been distributed throughout all classes. Everybody was agreed. Now an attempt is being made to shift the cash burden of the War on to the shoulders of those not strong enough to bear it. That is the first point. The second point is that the Budget is bringing into action the old engine of exploitation of the many by the few. The third point is that this Budget takes no material account of the great problem of the day, which is unemployment. It will make no serious contribution to the reduction of the large number of the unemployed. Of course, we shall be defeated to-night in the House, but when the people have examined the Budget and have seen its results in working then, when we get the effects, most certainly it will be disapproved of by the electorate of the country.

Mr. KIDD: I should like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) on his last stand this evening after a long fight; though I do not know that I am prepared to accept his deductions as to the Oldham election. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in a characteristic speech, has very properly brought to the notice of the House the rapid fall in our national revenue, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given conclusive proof that he has had this matter under consideration. In the earlier Debates we heard a good deal as to the policy pursued of adding to the Death Duties of those who pay Super-tax, but I suggest that that is unfair criticism. The man who pays the Death Duties is the man who pays the Super-tax, and the concession that is being given will allow him to make provision for the Death Duties. It is to be hoped the man who has had that relief from Super-tax, in addition to adding to the wealth of the country, may be able to have a margin over to form a redemption fund against the increased Death Duties which his estate may be called upon to bear. It may be argued against me that that is all very
well for a man of middle age who is in actual business, but what about the man who is past that age? My answer is that, in addition to some redemption fund, that older man is more concerned than any other man in maintaining the capital value of his estate, and that capital value can in no way better be maintained than by having the prosperity of the country as a whole stimulated, as it will be, by the greater facility afforded to the successful young man to do yet more business. Therefore, the latter man gets that benefit from the stimulation of industry by the reduction of Super-tax. He has his capital values maintained at a point at which they would not have stood without this added prosperity in the country.
Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to stimulate industry by his re-imposition of the McKenna Duties. I am not sure that the Chancellor will agree with my interpretation of his action, but I have always had the feeling that we have given far too wide a connotation to the term "Protection." I have always preferred to believe that, not casuistically, but quite soundly and economically, we could distinguish between Protection on the one hand and security to an infant industry on the other, that we could also distinguish between Protection on the one hand and Imperial Preference on the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, both in his re-imposition of the McKenna Duties and his Imperial Preference proposals, has done his best, not only to stimulate new industry, but to discover for us new markets. With regard to the favour which, as some say, he has shown to agricultural land, I have no wish to go over the arguments I used in the House the other evening in regard to that, but I think any man who has applied his mind to the question without prejudice will agree that we have too long confused an investment in land and an investment in industry as being one and the same thing. The owner of a factory is rated for his factory and machinery, which, it may be, bears a very small proportion to the profitability of his concern. He does not pay tax on the raw material taken into his mill. But the land owner and the farmer to-day are to all intents and purposes paying rates on what is to them raw material, what to the farmer is the equivalent of the bales of cotton
to the mill owner. It is by failing to distinguish between the peculiar position of land in that respect and industry that we have caused agriculture to be so depressed in the past. We have depressed it to the point that we have very nearly lost to agriculture the facility of the landowner letting his land at the lowest possible rate of interest. Had the landowner not given his land at a very small rent, producing for him a very small return on his capital, balancing this small rent against the social prestige derived from land, then obviously agriculture would not have prospered even to the extent it has done. It may be said that agriculture is not prosperous to-day, but that is not the fault of the landowner. It is the fault of the legislature, the fault of Parliament in failing to distinguish the peculiar position of land, resting on a social basis, let to the farmer as a raw material on very cheap terms, from the factory and the mill, run on a basis simply of profit. It is due to that, and certainly not to any fault of the landowner, that agriculture is suffering to-day. Inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has clearly shown by his Budget that the tendency will be to stimulate industry, to discover new markets and to give a very proper favour, if it be a favour, to the agricultural interest of the country, I think many Members, not only on this side of the House, but in every part, will warmly welcome the passing of this Bill.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: At this stage in the Budget proceedings it is almost impossible for anyone from this side of the House, which has been active in debate, to put any new matter to hon. Members, and I do not suggest that the one or two points I shall put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer contain anything novel. Hon. Members behind me and on the Liberal Benches have emphasised the dangers of the Protectionist proposals which are operating in this Finance Bill. One of the great defects of the scheme upon which the Government are rapidly proceeding is that they are not building up what used to be called in other days a scientific tariff. I am not sure, if we take the statements of the Prime Minister, that we are even approaching a comprehensive tariff, but we are getting a great deal of tariffism in patches, as individual industries come forward and establish some kind of case,
and sometimes, even, as we have seen, get protection without establishing a case at all. I will not detain the House by arguing the merits of that class of economic legislation; but there is one aspect of this growing tariffism of which this Budget is a very good illustration which hon. Members who are fiscal reformers and tariffists will agree, I think, ought to be considered now. Since this Government came into office we in Great Britain have taken a definite step in the direction in the return to the gold standard. It is not, of course, the definite and final proposal in that matter; it is much more accurate to say that at the moment we are in a transition period of about two years, during which we are going to study very closely the preliminary steps we are taking before going back definitely to a gold basis. We on this side of the House made it plain that while we did not object fundamentally to a return to the gold standard, we appreciated the dangers and the difficulties of the steps being taken at this time, and we were very much afraid that the policy upon which the Chancellor and the Government were embarking was one that would lead to increased unemployment, to a further fall in prices, and to the more tragic forms of that deflation with which we have been familiar in recent years. Some people have said already that the increased unemployment of the recent weeks has been due to the very declaration of that policy, but, speaking quite for myself, I do not take that view, because the test of the operation of the return to the gold standard in the sense of further deflation is the test of a further fall in prices, and I do not think any hon. Member can say there has been any fall in recent weeks. Nor do I attach very much importance to what we call the psychological element in that connection at the moment. By far the more important thing for this House is to safeguard those general industrial and economic foundations which are going best to pave the way for an easy and sound return to the gold standard when the time comes.
My objection to a great deal of the tariffism which we find within this Budget is that it militates directly against a true policy in that direction. In other words, instead of maintaining the greatest freedom in our commercial
intercourse, instead of making our contribution to lowering the tariff barriers which are being raised up and down the world, we have taken the definite step of ourselves falling into that error. I believe hon. Members opposite to be absolutely wrong when they suggest that this is a means of retaliation on our part. That argument was employed over and over again in the old fiscal controversies, but the sound reply is that we are in a peculiar position, that as an island community we have very special considerations in our invisible services; and, further, it is important that while a great deal of the world goes towards tariffism, as undoubtedly it has done, this country should maintain the largest measure of fiscal freedom; and inasmuch as that is bound up with our financial policy in trying to return to the gold standard and to keep London the financial centre of the world, I believe the Government have taken unfortunate and dangerous steps in their Budget scheme.
The second point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House concerns the position of our expenditure. Strictly speaking, I have always understood that it was a little irrelevant to discuss expenditure on this occasion, but many hon. Members have done so, and in any case we can relate it very closely to the £801,000,000 of revenue which we are raising under this Budget scheme. What was the Very remarkable proposal made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil)?. In an access of despair, apparently, he had come to the conclusion that it was no use trusting any Government, any Cabinet Committee, or any special Committee set up for the purpose of considering expenditure, and that what we ought to do was to appoint as a Committee, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and one civil servant, whom I will call at the moment, without offence, some distinguished bureaucrat, to whom should be entrusted the power of overriding the other Members of the Cabinet in their several Departments, laying down a policy in expenditure and in economy to which they were to conform. That is a very extraordinary proposal to come from the Noble Lord. If that had been suggested from this side of the House, I have no doubt the criticism would have
been that it was a dictatorship by people who are supposed to be peculiarly partial to some of the steps taken in Russia within recent years. But this dictatorship of three people, which is apparently very largely to override the House of Commons, which is to dominate a majority of the Members of the Cabinet, which is to consist of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister and one bureaucrat, comes not from the Labour and Socialist movement but from the very bosom of Oxford University. The plain truth is that a device of that kind is perfectly hopeless in existing conditions. We must preserve the authority of the House of Commons, and the anxious interest of the House of Commons, in all matters respecting expenditure and finance. We are not going to find a cure along the lines suggested by the Noble Lord. At the same time no Member, whether he is Unionist, Liberal, Labour or Socialist, can view without anxiety a state of affairs in which we are going on from year to year committed to having to find at least £800,000,000. As a national duty we must analyse that revenue and that expenditure, and without being in the least sympathetic to the present Government, and certainly not sympathetic to the financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do say that it is our business to put any ideas we possess into the common pool and tell our fellow Members what we believe should be done.
7.0 P.M.
There is one great weakness in the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have noticed that when we approach technical and hard facts he entertains us by knocking our heads together and by reminding us of our financial past and other devices of that kind. In all this Budget controversy he has never said one word about the £360,000,000 which goes to the mere service of the debt. He has said nothing about the £120,000,000 which we are raising for armaments at the present day. Those two items give £460,000,000 or £470,000,000 out of his Budget of £801,000,000 which is passing from the review of the House of Commons to-night. Surely it is altogether weak on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say "I hope," or "It ought to be an ideal "—I think that is the accurate way of putting it—to secure some reduction of probably £10,000,000 in the Civil
Services, or, as I will call them now, the social services of the State. I invite the Chancellor to tell us if he can anticipate at all any of the proposals of the Colwyn Committee. Can he tell us anything about what he intends to do in armament reduction, pressed upon him by representatives of three parties in the House of Commons this afternoon? What does he propose to do in those two directions which admittedly lend themselves to a good deal of reduction of expenditure at the present day?
I come now to the social services, f rather more than £200,000,000. It is, apparently, in that sphere that the Chancellor indicates that it ought to be our duty to try to secure some reduction of expenditure. We commonly recognise that the £200,000,000 a year of expenditure on social services is very largely regulated by the level of prices in Great Britain. If the Chancellor analyses that class of expenditure he will find that it consists mainly of remuneration, and that that remuneration is fixed in accordance with certain scales. The rise or fall in the cost of living for all practical purposes determines a very large part of the expenditure which he must cover year by year. Moreover, he will find himself confronted by this difficulty. The industrial depression of the last four years has rendered more acute the social misery and distress of many millions of our people. You cannot escape a great deal of expenditure on these social services, and more and more there will be pressure upon the right hon. Gentleman, because of the fact that many of our local authorities to-day are at the limit of their borrowing powers. They are up to the neck in overdrafts and debt. They are finding difficulty in getting more accommodation, and the pressure upon the taxpayers as a whole will be very considerable indeed.
I do not want to leave this without making at least one, as I regard it, constructive suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. Strongly as we on this side will resist any attempt to interfere with the Social Services, we are just as keen as any hon. Member to see that we get the best value for the money we are expending. I am not satisfied that we are getting the best return at the present day. There is a great deal of weakness in the connection between the State and
the local authorities. The percentage grant system, which is really the bridge which exists in this flow of money from the centre to the locality, was investigated for more than a year by a Committee representative of the Members of this House under able and, indeed, distinguished leadership elsewhere. No report has been presented, but the position comes to this, that we ought to do our very best to work out a unit of cost in those social services—by that I mean an analysis of what it takes to run some service compared with other districts of the country—and combine that with the percentage grant system. If you do that you will get a far better return for the expenditure of this money. You will save the lives of far more people, from tuberculosis, and you will embark upon a true form of economy which very largely is being neglected at the present time. That is the kind of line the Chancellor should pursue. It is no use making a broadside upon the social services and saying, "Here I am going to try to reduce expenditure." That excites a perfectly natural and intelligible animosity, because the backs of many of those people are literally to the wall, and we have to do all we can to protect them in their social conditions.
There is one point in conclusion. I want to ask the Chancellor whether he has any statement to make when he replies regarding our general financial policy viewed in a very wide and comprehensive sense, and I will try to make that request perfectly plain. I sometimes wonder if even hon. Members of this House, familiar with finance, and if more than a small percentage of the people outside, appreciate the extraordinary financial achievements of this country since 1914, and appreciate all that that means for the mass of our people in unemployment and distress and reduction of remuneration. It was a distinguished economist who reminded us that in the short period of six years between March, 1914, and March, 1920. we spent more in public expenditure in Great Britain than in the whole two and a quarter centuries back to the Revolution of 1688. If I had my way, I would print this on almost every document in circulation at the present time. That is the explanation of a great deal of our social and economic distress. I cannot help thinking that we have
shouldered a very large part—and I sometimes think an unfair part—of the War obligations.
We have entered into an understanding to repay £900,000,000 to the United States over 60 years. We have no guarantee to-night of a comparable payment from our Allies. We have waived half of the £2,000,000,000 due by Allies to us. We have seen tariff barriers raised against us in almost every country in the world. We taxed ourselves admittedly very heavily but I still think not heavily enough during the War. We are carrying a Budget to-day of £800,000,000, which appears to be standardised according to a good deal of the competent criticism of the time—it is four times the pre-War revenue of Great Britain—we have pursued a policy of returning to the gold standard; and, at one point, nearly 2,000,000 out of work, and in spite of all that —our deflation, the balancing of our Budget, the definite effort to restore our credit—the system has stood the strain. But what I want to urge is that it has stood the strain at a very considerable price for millions of our people. I do not deny that it has been a very heavy price for a good deal of our industry and commerce is well. What is the practical duty in parting with this Finance Bill of every hon. Member of this House? If there be one duty which in common we owe to our country in this matter it is this. Do not say or write anything which is going to damage British credit to-day. The net effect of that, with the burdens we already carry, is to make it harder for us to recover, and to aggravate the load of suffering which the people have shouldered with not very much complaint in recent years.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad to associate myself with the applause that came from all parts of the House in response to the helpful, thoughtful, powerful, and constructive speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). It is the kind of speech which is required in Debates upon our financial policy. I will give the most careful consideration to the various constructive suggestions which he has made. Perhaps, in the course of my remarks this evening, I may refer to some of them. I will give the most careful
consideration to his remarks, and I express, on behalf of the Government, our acknowledgment of the manner in which, without in the least withdrawing any of his disapproval of the general policy of the Government, he has thrown his knowledge and experience into the common stock.
We are now at the end of the Debates upon the Budget. In a very short time it will be passed, for good or ill. I shall permit myself, in making a few final observations, to look back a little over the course of our Debates. The first reception of the Budget, not only here, but out-of-doors, was overwhelmingly favourable. I took the trouble to read all the newspapers, or, at any rate, to look at all the newspapers the next day, and I think, with hardly an exception, there was a general chorus of approval, of modified approval, or, at the very worst, of mild detachment. A cynic has said, "Distrust first thoughts; they are usually honest." Certainly, I must admit that the second thoughts, of the Press at any rate and to some extent of the Opposition in the House of Commons, were very different from those of the first few hours and days. We have had the most vehement declaration of fierce unrelenting opposition from the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), who sits perched below the Gangway on the Opposition side. I must admit that he has made his threats good. He has not promised without performing, and the part he has played in these long discussions, almost single-handed, however painful it has been to the physical convenience of the House as a whole, has certainly been a very recognisable feature of the whole of the Budget Debates. Then we had an outburst in important sections of the popular Press, which I must also recognise has continued in undiminished activity so far as possible up to the present time. Of course we have had the vigorous denunciations which one would naturally expect from the official Opposition, and I am not in the least alarmed by this agitation and opposition, because I am quite sure there is no real substance behind it. Political agitation, unsustained by some real grievance, is like a bonfire on ice, it blazes away merrily as long as the fuel lasts, but it does not seem to get any
general hold of the surface on which it rests. If we look over in cold blood some of these criticisms which have constituted this agitation, I think those who use them will feel that upon the whole, and it is in that way we must judge them, the progress of discussion has disposed of those criticisms and worn away the attempts to create a spirit of anger or discontent in the country in consequence of the Budget.
I will begin by saying a few words about the Silk Duty. I was told that I was going to be hanged by a silken cord. I was told that we had ruined the prosperity of the firm of Courtaulds. I was told that we had committed an ineffable meanness in taxing the finery of poor working girls. I was told that we had struck hard and indeed that we had struck low at an infant industry which, in the general decline and depression of British trade, was alone bearing up bravely against foreign competition, and developing its exports. All these things we were told, and the most careful and elaborate calculations were presented to us, showing how serious would be the burden placed upon the users of artificial silk in consequence of these duties. Here we are now almost within a few days of the application of these new duties. As far as artificial silk is concerned, it is clear that the foreign importers who compete with our domestic industries intend to make a substantial diminution in the price at which they will place their goods on the British market, a diminution which will go a long way towards meeting the duty charged at the ports. I have received a letter from Messrs. Courtaulds, who have been for many weeks very strenuous and active opponents of these duties. The letter is as follows:
I beg to confirm what I told you over the telephone this afternoon, that is that Messrs. Courtaulds, Limited, have decided to accept further orders for artificial silk yarn until 30th September next at their present price, that is to say, they will not pass on any part of the 1s. Excise Duty to their customers.
It will be seen that there is going to be, at any rate in the case of the firm which governs prices here, no increase of any sort or kind with regard to the price of artificial silk, and there is no justification for the slightest addition to the retail price of the articles which contain artificial silk. I want to make that declaration quite clearly and
plainly at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been driven from pillar to post and forced to abandon one position of sombre expectation after another. He says that we may get through the 1st July, but what is going to happen after the stocks which have come in have been dispersed? I do not hesitate to say that we have, according to all reasonable expectation, already embarked upon a trend of circumstances which will lead to a gradual and progressive diminution in the price of artificial silk through improvements in manufacture, and through the fact that there is a growing element of competition. I do not hesitate to say it is a reasonable expectation at this moment—if I should be called upon next year to stand here at this Box and review, as I may do, the fiscal history of the past 12 months— that I shall be able to show not only that there has been more employment, new factories, greater developments in both the natural and the artificial silk industry, but, so far as the artificial silk is concerned, I think I shall be able to show that there has been no increase in the price at which these articles can be purchased by the general public. Therefore I am content to leave the Silk Duties as they have commended themselves to the opinion, sometimes the reluctant opinion, of all parties in the House of Commons. If I am right that there will be no increase in the price of artificial silk, then the drawbacks which have been given to the Lancashire and Yorkshire trade will act as a direct stimulus to their exportation, and this will compensate them for any friction to which they may be exposed during the process of collecting the duties and obtaining the drawbacks.
In the second place, we have had from the official Opposition a steady stream, amounting almost to a drone, of class prejudice, abuse and criticism of wealth and of attempts to depict it as something like a crime to make any remission to the direct taxpayer. We have had arguments continually put forward which can only lead to one conclusion, and that is that the direct taxpayers should never receive any relief, but, on the contrary, we have been told that we ought to aim at relieving the indirect taxpayer altogether and throw the burden, as was suggested
by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), entirely on the backs of the Income Tax payer.

Mr. LANSBURY: I said that the tax should be levied according to ability to pay.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the hon. Member meant that the whole burden should be thrown upon the direct taxpayer.

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly, according to the ability to pay.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been told this afternoon by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) that all the good feeling created by the Prime Minister not long ago has been destroyed by this Budget, that it will eventually split the country into two nations, and arraign the poor against the wealthy. The hon. Member for Peckham uses this kind of argument and language on all occasions, and the party opposite use the same argument against the present economic position. The fact of the matter is that they seek to substitute for private ownership a universal system of State control of production, of distribution and of exchange.

Mr. DALTON: No.

Mr. CHURCHILL: At any rate, that is the official policy of the party to which the hon. Member belongs. Even if this Budget had been one which commended itself to their view, I believe hon. Members opposite would have continued this policy of class warfare and of trying to exploit the sufferings, the unfortunate circumstances and the hard conditions of the great mass of the workers in this and other countries. I am sure that exploitation would have continued as a great weapon in their political warfare. I deny that anything in this Budget has embittered that feeling, and people are already throwing in all the energy they can. I am told that this Budget has created unemployment, and although not many hon. Members have dared to say that in the House, outside that statement has been thrown into our ears with ceaseless iteration. We have been told that unemployment has increased by 228,000. 70,000 of these are due to the relaxations of the late Government and 161,000 are in the coal industry. But what has the
Budget got to do with that Is it suggested that the Budget has been the cause of trouble in the coalfields, and that it has been the cause of the relaxation which were granted last year? That, I think, is absurd. To say that a Budget which has not yet become the law of the land has been the cause of creating unemployment is a wilful and shameful attempt to mislead public opinion. The effect of the Budget, such as it is, is naturally limited. The sums of money at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not large enough materially to influence any great movement of national life at this moment. In so far as we have been able to produce any effects at all, it would be impossible for such effects to manifest themselves until the Budget had been at work for some considerable time. Perhaps a year hence there would be more justice in making the Budget play a part in our affairs, whether for good or for ill. For the present, any effects on industry which are due to Budgetary conditions can certainly not be attributed to the Budget of the present year. A longer interval will be needed before they become apparent.
Then we are told that this Budget breaks the pledge of the Government by introducing Protection. I think the Liberal party are very ill-advised to use such violent language about the breaking of pledges. The language would be very wounding and very insulting but for one fact—that nobody believes it to be justified; nobody takes it seriously; everyone feels that it is not based on truth, and it is only truth that injures and wounds. What have we done? I am still a Free Trader; what have I done in this Budget? I have simply collected the wild oats that were sown by Mr. Asquith, by Mr. McKenna, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman)—I have simply collected these relics from the field and have fastened them together with a silken thread. That represents the whole of my action or offence. For everything that has been done, except
the Silk Duties, with which I have already dealt, there is absolute warrant in decisions which have been taken, and which are publicly known, by Liberal statesmen of unimpeachable orthodoxy and of scarcely challenged authority.
Let me, however, say a word about the character of the pledge which governs the action of the Government. As I view it and understand it, we are pledged not to commit the country, during the present Parliament, to a decisive change in our fiscal system. That is, I think, a broad, frank, full interpretation of the declarations which were made at the Election, of the platform on which the Election was fought, and of the statements which have since been made in the House of Commons. I accept fully all the verbal pledges that have been made, but that is my interpretation of it. The House may be sure that the pledges which have been made by the Prime Minister and by other Ministers, and which were embodied in the platform of the party, will be strictly and faithfully honoured in substance and in spirit. There is no question whatever of a breach of pledge in that matter. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith is always on the watch, ready to drop his bomb, like an aeroplane hanging over a neutral zone between contending States, but I beg him to study very carefully the language I have used.
This pledge, which will be strictly observed, was not the only pledge that the Government gave in regard to fiscal matters. We pledged ourselves to introduce in an effective manner the principle of Preference within the Empire upon existing duties, and in doing that we were simply carrying out declarations which had been openly made, and votes which had been given in the House of Commons, giving effect to the Resolutions of 1917, to which all parties in the House were officially committed. I listened this afternoon to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) It was a speech addressed nominally to the author of the Budget, but it constituted, from beginning to end, a solemn lecture, warning the defaulters and backsliders in the Labour ranks who, in spite of the views which the right hon. Gentleman has so often expressed, have shown a tendency
to treat Imperial matters on a broader basis than that merely of party politics. I wish that all who are present in the House could have heard the powerful and eloquent manner in which my right hon. Friend revived the old-time glamour of Parliamentary debate. I am sure there must have been many uneasy consciences on the Labour Benches when they found the Father of the House, the old Radical Free Trader, reproaching them with their weakness in yielding to the growing convictions and movements of their minds in regard to Imperial Preference. I must remind my right hon. Friend of some of the language which he used. "The wolf is at our door." "Selfish men are trying to get rich at the expense of the community"—[An HON. MEMBER: "As a result of Protection!"]—as a result of Protection. A preferential tariff on wheat was the danger which he feared. Such a plan united the evil forces of the world in a conspiracy against the poor. And, he said, once you begin to tax, this is where you are bound to come.
What tax have we imposed for the purposes of Imperial Preference? No tax has been imposed for the purposes of Imperial Preference—not only no food tax, but no tax of any sort or kind has been imposed for any other purpose but that of revenue With the exception of the safeguarding duty on lace, every tax has been imposed for revenue, and none of them affect the basic articles of consumption, or even the luxury foodstuffs of the mass of the people. All that we have done to incur this solemn protest and impressive condemnation is to grant rebates in favour of the Dominions from duties which are at present in existence, and which have been imposed by Governments of every hue, purely for revenue purposes. All that we have done is to take off taxation in favour of Dominion produce, a process for which, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) was prompted to remind my right hon. Friend, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was actually awarded the gold medal of the Cobden Club.
Then there are the safeguarding of industries pledges which have been given, and I should like to say a few words on that subject, because it is very important that the House should clearly understand the (implications of any policy of that kind. I summed up our pledges on the first occasion on which I spoke on
these subjects in this Parliament. They may, broadly speaking, be said to be Imperial Preference without taxation on food, and Safeguarding of Industries without a general protective tariff. That is the position which we occupy. As I explained before Christmas, the original Safeguarding of Industries policy, as conceived by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen, and as enforced in the last Parliament, proposed the safeguarding of industries by duties imposed from time to time against the exceptional competition of particular countries. They were duties aimed only at particular countries. There has been a change in that respect, as was fully admitted to the House. When we came into office, we found immediately before us the project of a German Treaty which commended itself to all parts of the House, as it did to His Majesty's Ministers, and, from that and other considerations, it became perfectly clear that the most-favoured-nation principle, which has long been the foundation of our commercial policy, would be violated by a continuance, after the war conditions had passed away, of the principle of safeguarding by discriminatory duties against particular countries.
We, therefore, abandoned that principle of safeguarding against particular countries by discriminatory duties, although the anti-dumping provisions embodied in the Safeguarding of Industries Act of the Coalition Government still remained in full effect. Instead, we proposed to give effect to the safeguarding policy by duties of a general character— general duties. A general duty is not a general tariff. I see a great deal of confusion, not only here, but in the Press, on that subject. A general duty is a general duty; a general tariff is an aggregate of general duties. The question that naturally arises, in proceeding by general duties instead of discriminating against particular countries, is, as I said before Christmas, how many duties could be imposed without carrying us into the region of a breach of the pledges which (have been given. That, naturally, has been and will be very carefully considered. Evidently, the change from a discriminatory duty to a general duty carries with it implications, in regard not only to the number of duties, but also, to some
extent, to the range of the tariff in respect of the industries safeguarded. A general safeguarding duty, for instance, on some commodities, which carried with it the necessity of imposing a number of consequential duties on other commodities, would, naturally, carry us into a region where the question of the interpretation of the pledge would have to be considered. But, so far as we have proceeded at the present time, nothing has been done which, on the strictest interpretation from a hostile Free Trade point of view of our pledges, could be considered in the slightest degree to transgress the full spirit and intention of the pledges which were given at the General Election.
Then there is a third class of duties in the Budget—I mean duties for revenue on articles of luxury or quasi luxury. Personally, I am of opinion that these are entirely legitimate, and they are in accord with the practice of many Free Trade countries. For instance, in Holland, where the basis of the country's policy has been Free Trade, a considerable revenue has for many years been raised by the taxation for revenue purposes of finished and luxury commodities. Where possible, a countervailing Excise would be imposed, as I have imposed it in the case of the Silk Duties. But I do not consider that, if a suitable luxury commodity presented itself, which would yield a reasonable revenue, easily collected, one would be at all inhibited from imposing such a duty by the mere fact that it might prove inconvenient, or impracticable, or pedantic to impose a countervailing Excise. I said quite clearly that I should search and study luxury consumption and luxury importation with a view to seeing if there are means by which revenue sources can be extended without adding in any way to the cost of the necessaries or comforts of the mass of the people. The Silk Duty is a very good example of this kind of thing. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say that if he were in a position to take off £6,000,000 of indirect taxation he would take off the Silk Duty before he took off the duty on tea. What nonsense we have heard about silk being one of the vital necessaries of the poorest people in the land. Tea is a basic comfort of the very poorest people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not take it off?"] If there were no difficulty in
raising the revenue tea is certainly a commodity which Chancellors of the Exchequer would be glad to relieve, but to propose to continue a tax on tea when you wish to remove a tax on silk is one of the greatest errors in democratic outlook that it is possible to have.
I consider that no pledge has been given which in any way debars me as Chancellor of the Exchequer from making proposals to the House for bona fide revenue duties, and I do not consider that one should be deterred when everything else is satisfactory, even if it were not practicable to levy a countervailing Excise. I believe this process of substituting optional taxation in the region of luxury for compulsory taxation is one which in itself is entirely beneficial. Here I must for a moment diverge from my Noble Friend, who made such an interesting speech and one with which I was so very largely in agreement in the earlier part of the Sitting. My Noble Friend fixed upon consumption as the supreme test, and the moment of consumption as the moment of the realisation and enjoyment of wealth. He took a piece of coal and said that all the processes of getting it from the mine and transporting it by rail merely led up to the supreme moment when it was put on the fire. But I am of opinion that my Noble Friend must pursue his analysis of the history of the coal a little further, because if it is put on the fire for wasteful purposes, for purposes of unnecessary indulgence, that is quite a different form of consumption from what takes place if it is used to start some new productive process and to enable a further development of wealth to take place, and this distinction between luxury consumption and consumption which is necessary to maintain the health and well-being of the mass of the nation, or the consumption that is necessary to promote the further operations of production is a very important distinction which no system of taxation can afford to ignore. There is consumption for indulgence and consumption for further production. Included in the consumption for further production is everything that ministers to the health of the workers. That is quite true. That is a necessary part of the economic system, but I should deprecate trying to measure our wealth solely by our consumption, especially when you enter the region of luxury consumption. I do not admit that the
importation of foreign luxuries and finished articles under the present conditions of the world's affairs necessarily creates a counter export from this country. There is a great difference between trade and tribute. Debts and indemnity and reparation claims incurred through the War now overhang the exchanges of many countries with an enormous weight, and while those debts, be they public or private, and those reparations are passing across the exchanges it is not true to say that every importation, if sufficiently prolonged, will ultimately induce a corresponding exportation. That fundamental argument of Free Traders, which figures in the famous petition of the merchants in 1828, is in abeyance in so far as the exchanges of the world are overhung by these enormous sums of indebtedness, whether by debt or reparation, which came into existence in the course of the Great War. Therefore it seems to me that the restriction of the consumption of foreign luxuries is not merely no affront to the general principle of the Free Trade system but it is also a measure which plays its part in the immediate economy of the country, because, by diminishing the luxury purchases which we make abroad we make it easier for ourselves to obtain the supplies of food and raw material without which neither our people could live nor our manufacturers thrive. So I shall certainly search for articles of luxuries which, by bearing an additional weight of taxation, would tend to diminish the taxation which weighs on industry, and also the taxation of the necessaries of the people. I do not believe that in that way I commit the slightest infraction either of fiscal orthodoxy or, what is scarcely less important, good sense.
I come now to the last criticism I have to meet. I have left it to the last because it is the most serious and the one I feel most anxious about, and the most damaging criticism I have to meet. It is the criticism directed towards the volume of our expenditure. It was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) and was enforced in a most drastic manner by the lash of my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). He went so
far as to say the only way to stop this expenditure is to put an end to this process of improvement, to make up our minds that it cannot continue, and there is no doubt a great measure of truth in the fact that it is just the desire of these great Departments and of their branches to make things better, to have a more efficient service, to perform their task more fully—it is the desire of every Minister at the head of a great Department to try to render really good service to the country, to have a good tale to tell to the House of Commons—it is that desire, praiseworthy in itself, which constitutes the driving force of the immense upward tendency to expenditure at present. I have said that if the taxpayer is to have relief in the future, it will be essential for us to aim at a reduction of the total of our expenditure. I have not said at all, as a pledge or promise to the House, that I shall be able to achieve that reduction. Do not let the House underrate the enormous difficulties which stand in the way. I agree entirely with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich and by my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University, but I say do not underrate the difficulties. It is living in a fool's paradise to underrate the difficulties which in every direction, wherever you turn, confront the economist. It is "fixed bayonets" in every quarter. Whether you look at the military expenditure or at the domestic expenditure, the resistances are enormous, and they are backed not only with good argument, but with very powerful accumulations and gatherings of public interest and public opinion. Take the Army, the Air Force and the Navy as we inherited them from our predecessors. The Army is costing less than it did before the War: if you make allowance, as you must do, for diminished purchasing power, it is costing considerably less. It was £28,000,000 or £29,000,000 before the War. It is relatively less than that now. But, on the other hand, our obligations have increased. The British Army was never increased for the purposes of the German war. It was simply fixed at the level which is necessary for police work.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am a little afraid of this line of argument, which, if it were replied to, would of course enter on a
Debate on the military and naval Estimates.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will confine myself simply to using these particular points as incidental features in the general argument which is entirely relevant to the question of expenditure. There is the Army. There is Air. The Air Force is at present carrying out a programme of expansion sanctioned by the party opposite.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is not so.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a programme of expansion which was carried out last year and is going on in the present year, and is to be continued in the next year. The expansion has been absolutely continuous for the last four years. Then there is a question of the Navy. We had arguments from the late Prime Minister showing that we could not afford to let the bottoms drop out of our ships. Whatever you may say about expenditure on armaments, it is obviously necessary at certain periods to make provision, however modest it may be, for the gradual replacement of units of the Fleet which become worn out. I only say here are these facts. I do not accept for a moment that reductions are not possible. I am only pointing out that while it is very easy to talk about cutting down, when you come to look at the facts you see clearly that there are most powerful arguments on the other side. Turn to the Civil Service, or what I think are better called the Social Services. There is an idea in certain quarters that the enormous increase of the Civil Service Votes is due to the Civil Service having become much more numerous and having much more pay. I will not say that is not appreciable, but it is not the primary factor in the great expense we have to meet.
Let me take one or two instances. Nearly all these social services are covered by legislation, and in order to make large reductions you would have to reverse the legislation, which, of course, the House could do if it chose to embark upon it. But take education. It is fixed by agreement with the local authority, by Regulations, by standards, and so forth. Take health expenditure—housing expenditure—and old age pensions, which are growing automatically and which are a matter of public faith. There are the
War pensions. Does anyone suggest that we should reduce the pensions of soldiers who were wounded in the War, and their widows? There is the question of unemployment insurance, which is not likely to diminish. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] It is certainly not likely to diminish while unemployment is not getting better. All these matters undoubtedly account for a great part of the expenditure, and there is the expenditure for the service of the Debt—the Sinking Fund and interest on the Debt. Does anyone suggest that we should repudiate our Debt? What could be more foolish than to diminish our Sinking Fund at a time when, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) has pointed out, there is a possibility in the course of a few years of very large and important conversion operations?
8.0 P.M.
In view of the steady stream of criticism there has been about the expenditure of the country, I think I am entitled to put frankly before the House some of the immense difficulties which will obstruct one's path if we are to achieve a net reduction in the total expenditure of the country. But I do not in the least despair. I propose, as soon as this Budget is passed away from the House, to begin, assisted by the Cabinet Committee, which I was authorised to announce to the House, and which will be under the direct authority of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to search through all branches of expenditure, and I shall certainly not fail to examine that aspect to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of the percentage grants and the relations between the national and the local authorities, in regard to which, I understand, the long-delayed Report will be almost immediately in my hands. If I do my best, I trust that, at any rate, I may rely upon the assistance of those Members of the House of Commons who have criticised most severely the present high rate of expenditure.
I have finished, and I have no more desire to detain the House, except to express my very sincere acknowledgments of the great courtesy and patience with which all parties in the House have dealt with the discussions on the Budget. Even when they have been most severe in their criticism, there has
hardly been a moment when good temper has not been preserved, and I believe it is true to say that the main issues have been fought out, and have been fully exposed, and that, if the country read, as it ought to do, but has rather ceased to do, the Debates in this House with full attention, it would find that all the great questions which arise out of the Budget have been thrashed out very thoroughly across the Floor of the House. The Budget now leaves the House, and passes on to the Statute Book. You cannot consider the Budget apart from the pensions scheme, on the discussion of which we embark next week. All these plans are part of a common policy of His Majesty's Government. All are conformed, and are an implement of the pledges they gave to the electors at the last election. I am not in the least afraid of the issue, which is raised by the Budget and the pensions, being fought out in the constituencies of the country. The hon. Member for Peckham said, "If we merely go forth and explain what the Budget is, we shall succeed in accentuating the bitterness which exists "—or words to that effect— "We shall succeed in securing the condemnation of the Government."

Mr. DALTON: This is a very free translation of what I said.

Mr. CHURCHILL: At any rate the hon. Member said, "If we merely go forth and explain." He will not be the only person, and his party will not be the only party that will explain to the country the policy which has occupied, and will occupy, practically the whole legislative period of this Session. Others will go forth, and they will be able to explain that a Budget has been passed which is based on sound finance and strict fulfilment of all our obligations and the due payment of our debts, that a Budget has been passed which diminishes the burden of the direct taxpayers by what amounts almost to a shilling over the whole range of the Income Tax payer, that discriminates in favour of earned incomes, has given a long deferred, much-needed measure of relief to the smaller class of Income Tax payers. and. in so far as the higher class have been touched, a burden has been shifted from the effort of producing new enterprise new wealth, and transferred
to the wealth which passes from one hand to another at death. They can also explain that these reductions of direct taxation follow, as a natural complement, the very large reductions of indirect taxation made by the right hon. Gentleman in the preceding year. They can also say that no new burden of any kind is placed upon the masses of the people, except in so far as the masses of the people may wish to use silk or to purchase foreign motor cars. They can also say that Imperial Preference has been carried with a very great measure of general assent into actual effect, and when the pensions scheme, for which the finance of this year and future years makes immense pro vision is carried into effect, 6,000,000 wives will have behind them the assurance that if their husbands die they will have £25 a year, with an allowance for their children, irrespective of any further resources which they may obtain. If we all go forth and explain these matters to the country, I have no doubt that we shall find they receive from the broad masses of the people the same measure of support and recognition that they have, after these weary days, won triumphantly and unquestionably from the House of Commons.

Major CRAWFURD: The House has listened to one more very remarkable speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He takes exception, as he has taken exception before, to criticisms which we have passed from these benches on the action which the Government have taken in relation to the pledges of the Prime Minister with regard to Protection. I am not going to traverse old ground again in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman, full of the courage of his new convictions, excuses every action that has been taken, and also opens up a new vista, which, I am bound to say, we on this side of the House must view with very considerable alarm. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer means anything definite by the indication he has made, but we who have taken a very considerable exception to the variety of Protective measures which have been introduced into this Budget must view with considerable alarm the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that he will still be looking about for new sources of luxury taxation and for im-
posing fresh taxes on quasi-luxury articles. We for our part would be glad if, instead of looking about for new sources of taxation, he would look about for new means of reducing expenditure.
I am also bound to draw attention to the right hon. Gentleman's new rendering of the story, which was told by his colleague the President of the Board of Trade at the beginning of the Session, about the difference between a general tax and a general tariff. The question I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, if not to the right hon. Gentleman himself, is this: Under the pledges that have been given—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admits a pledge has been given not to introduce a general tariff—can you put a tax on imported iron and steel? Because, taking the right hon. Gentleman's own definition, a general tariff is an aggregate of general taxes, and the only question as to when one is the other, or is not the other, is how many general taxes go to make a general tariff? It is because of the uncertainty, or, rather, of the elasticity of this pledge, and the uses to which it has been put, that we on this side have raised such strenuous objection to these protective proposals.
My particular object in rising, however, was not to criticise the general proposals of this Budget, but to draw attention to one particular feature of them which I had hoped to raise at a previous stage of the Budget discussions, but which I have been unable to do, and I am particularly glad to have this opportunity of referring to this matter since the speech, to which I listened, of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd), in which he said that it had been the object and the intention of the Government in this Budget to stimulate trade and industry. My contention, is that the stimulation has taken place at the wrong end of trade, and also that many unexceptionable methods, which would not have been matters of controversy, have been open to the right hon. Gentleman, and he has neglected the opportunities which he has had. I wish to refer particularly to certain matters connected with the motor industry. The right hon. Gentleman has seen fit in his Budget to introduce a measure of protection for the manufacturers in the motor industry, on the ground that these motor cars and
allied articles are luxuries, and that, therefore, this tax can come under the definition of a luxury tax.
So far from believing that, we on these benches believe that it is the business of the Government, so far as finance can protect industry, to deal with these matters so as to bring such articles as motor cars, motor bicycles and things of that sort more and more within the reach of a larger number of people, and not to call them luxuries, and by putting a tax on them, keep them luxuries, but by freeing industry, by using fiscal methods to help the purchaser, rather than to give a dole to the manufacturer, to use that weapon so that a larger and larger circle of people may enjoy those things to which the right hon. Gentleman now refers as luxuries. An hon. Member sitting below me says, "What about secondhand cars?" It will interest him to know that I am going to have a word to say about secondhand cars a little later, but I want to point out the opportunities in the motor car industry which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had, and which he has wasted. I would like to make two preliminary remarks. In my view, one of the fiscal incidents which is hampering trade, and which is particularly hampering the motor car trade, is the method by which we at present tax motor users. I believe you will not get a fair method of taxing motor users, and of raising revenue from the use of motors, until you revert to the taxation of motor spirit, instead of a scale of motor licence duties, and I am perfectly sure, if you should ever return to the taxation of motor spirit, you would have a tax which was fair, equitable and revenue-producing.

It being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the
end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
In moving the rejection of this Bill, I ought to explain—many hon. Members will know it already—that I do so in no spirit of hostility, either to the London County Council or to this particular Bill. Every other municipal corporation, when it wishes to embark upon capital expenditure, has to submit that capital expenditure to a Government Department. In the old days an inspector of the Local Government Board came down to the district and held an inquiry with respect to the proposed capital expenditure. I suppose now that duty rests upon the Ministry of Health. It has always been laid down that the London County Council should be an exception, and that, having regard to the large sums involved and the importance of the work they are doing, it is the duty of Parliament to deal, and deal carefully, with the sanctioning of capital expenditure. I received that lesson in the year 1907 or 1908 from Mr. John Burns, who chided us very strongly for not bringing forward this Resolution more adequately in those days. I took that admonition to heart, and every year since then I have either moved this Resolution or I have assisted somebody else in connection with it.
This gives an opportunity for any Member of the House of Commons to ask practically any question or to raise almost any question he chooses upon the dealings of the County Council. Not only are there many items of capital expenditure contained in the Schedule of the Bill, but there are sums, for instance, one of £500,000, which can be raised for various purposes in case the County Council and the Treasury decide to do so. I am glad to admit that on this occasion I find that there is very little with which I can find fault in the Bill. The questions I have to ask are mostly of a very simple nature. We are dealing with big figures. We have in this Bill very large capital sums of tramway expenditure. Item 6 in the Schedule refers to the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Act, under which £120,000 is asked for this year, while in Item 16, the construction, reconstruction and equipment of tramways, provision of buildings and so forth, and other purposes, there is a
sum of £239,000. In addition there is is the Second Schedule a sum of £25,000, which is part of a sum of £261,000 capital expenditure upon tramways.
I should like my hon. Friend who is going to speak for the County Council to give some explanation regarding these very heavy sums. They are very heavy sums which are to be spent in extending the tramway system. I suppose that it is admitted now that the tramway system, through many causes, is carried on at a loss, and must be carried on at a loss to the County Council. Is it wise under those circumstances to extend a system which is already a loss to other parts of London and its suburbs? Wherever tramways come into opposition with omnibuses, the tramways have a very great difficulty in making a profit. I suppose my hon. Friend generally rides in a motor car, but a more humble individual like myself, who rides in a tram or an omnibus, I find that the omnibus is a far more pleasant and far more expeditious method of locomotion. A tram is not so comfortable, nor is it so expeditious as an omnibus.
Item 12 relates to the County Hall, and I find that £78,000 is the Estimate of the amount to be spent this year, and possibly a further £52,000 for the six months at the end of the current year. How much money has been spent upon the County Hall, and how much is it proposed to spend? We began some time before the War to build the County Hall. I asked in those days what the expenditure would be, but even the boldest defender of the County Council could not predict the cost, because it was too difficult. I should like to know how many thousands or how many millions of pounds have been spent on the building, and how much more is to be spent. Is the particular item which appears in this Bill for the County Hall the finish, or is it merely preparatory to another extension of the Hall?
There is provision in Item 11 for the provision of new offices and plant for testing gas meters, at a cost of £31,000. Is that in the same building? Why cannot gas be dealt with in the County Hall? There is another question. Is not that a new note here?
The expenditure under these heads is authorised under general powers contained in the Acts named in the first column and therefore no Parliamentary Estimate is required.
I do not understand that note and would like some explanation. Then with regard to Item 17, what is the amount required for the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge, which, of course, is an absolutely necessary work? They ask for £120,000 this year and £30,000 for the first six months next year. With regard to Lambeth Bridge. The Estimate is £668,000 and the amount for this year is £14,000. I would be glad if possible to have some information as to when the rebuilding of Lambeth Bridge is likely to be undertaken? It is in no spirit of hostility that I am asking for this information, but it is the duty of the House to scan with some care large issues of capital of this kind. My hon. Friend is an economist, and I hope that the mere fact that it is known that we do scrutinise the expenditure of the county council will help him in trying to stop them when they are inclined in any way to be extravagant.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: The points on which I wish to elicit some information are in reference to housing and open spaces. There is no more important question for the consideration. The programme of the county council with regard to housing and open spaces, admirably conceived as it is in a certain measure, does yet lack that imagination, enthusiasm and enterprise which are essential for a solution of the housing difficulties in London at the present time. There are, of course, very many difficulties, and there are particularly a great many difficulties in dealing with the question of slum clearance. As a Londoner, I want to see very much bigger steps taken for the removal of the slums, which are a blot upon our city, which is not only the capital of this country but is the capital of a world-wide Empire. I want to see those slums removed and this city made a fine city.
Some people may think that it is not worth while paying very much attention to the slums because you are dealing there with a humanity which is dying off and which can be dealt with by palliatives. But that is not true. The slum populations are veritable aggregations of vitality. They are extraordinarily active, not only physically, but mentally. The proof came in the War, when they provided a very large number of
extremely efficient soldiers, whose devoted courage went a long way to help us in our difficulties on the other side. I wish sometimes that hon. Members, when we are thinking and talking about Empire, as we do sometimes on this side as well as on the other side, would remember that one of the pillars of the Empire should be in London, and I would like to see in some part of London, on some little home, a commemorative plaque put up stating, "Here begins the world-wide Dominion of the British commonwealth of nations." But if that plaque were put up now on the hovels in certain parts of our great city it would be a mockery, and I want to prevent that mockery continuing as it is doing at the present time.
I need do no more than refer to the extraordinarily vivid history of our city which does not receive so much attention as certain more remote parts of the world. But we should at any rate, I think, try to get up the same enthusiasm, interest and vitality to deal with these questions of the building of our own city as we do with regard to the question of the more remote overseas Dominions, and I want to get information from those who will speak for the Government and the county council as to why it is that up to the present so many of the bad areas in London have not been dealt with, although their urgently bad condition has been known for 20 or 30 years. I want particularly to refer in the first instance to what is known as the Zoar Street area in North Southwark, the constituency which I have the honour to represent here. Southwark is, I believe, as a whole the most overcrowded part of His Majesty's Dominions.

Mr. THURTLE: No.

Mr. GUEST: I will not enter into a contest with the hon. Member but I will give the actual figure. There are 166 persons to the acre in Southwark as a whole. Poplar has 69.7, and Wandsworth only 36.1. The Zoar Street area, which is near the river closely adjoining Bank Side, which is also in my constituency, which was the site of the original Globe Theatre where Shakespeare's plays were produced, is so badly overcrowded that it has been the subject of representation to the public authority ever since the year 1903. It was described in those years as derelict, in a very rotten and
dilapidated condition, and unfit for human habitation. Since that time representations have been made continuously to the borough council and the City Corporation, who come into the picture because of the project to build St. Paul's Bridge, which would join the southern bank of the river at that point.
In 1920 the Borough Council of Southwark attempted to secure a movement ii) the matter. In June, 1920, December, 1920, February, 1921, and February, 1922, and up to the present time, May, 1925, there has been a series of representations from the borough council as to the condition of this particular part of the area. It is a very interesting part of London. It is a very typically British and English part. The names are themselves extraordinarily interesting. You have names like Skin Market Alley, and scores of other names of that description, some of which I think I have here, but the point is, that during the whole of that period, since, 1903, nothing has been done. Hon. Members may think that that is because there is nothing very urgent in the matter. Let me give one or two sets of statistics. Since 1903 there has been a very great improvement in the health of the general population. The death-rate has gone down for the borough as a whole—not particularly a health resort—from 21.4 in 1903 to 14.2 in 1924. In 1903 the death-rate for the Zoar Street area was 40.3, that is to say, practically twice as much as for the rest of the borough. In the year 1924 the death-rate for that area was 26.6, practically twice as much as the rate for the general area. It means that while the Zoar Street area has benefited by the general measures which have led to an amelioration of health, there are in that area certain factors connected with the buildings, with the places, with the arrangement of the streets and alleys, which make the death-rate in that part of the borough twice as heavy as the death-rate in other parts of Southwark. It is a very serious matter indeed, and it is exceedingly unfortunate that that condition should have been allowed to continue since 1903. Let me read a very short medical report which I have here—
The physique of the adults is poor and anæmic. Children are in a better condition, but they suffer from sore eyes and skin diseases of microbic origin, largely fostered
by the lack of ventilation, light and cleanliness.
It is time that we insisted that the county council take this matter in hand and deal with this area, as well as with other slum areas, in a more progressive spirit than they have done up to now. I am quite aware of the great expense which will be involved, but you must balance that money expense against the undeniable expense of human lives which is going on the whole of the time that conditions remain as they are in that area. Twice as many people are dying each year in that area as are dying in other parts of the borough. Hon. Members who know Southwark will realise that the death rate in that area is very much higher than the death rate in an area such as Hampstead or Wandsworth, or places where there is more open space. The question is what can be done? The reason for the delay is partly that the Bridge House Estates Committee has had a project to build a new St. Paul's Bridge. The borough council cannot get on; the county council cannot get on. The Bridge House Estates will not decide whether they will build a bridge or not. That may be a very interesting administrative quarrel between the three parties, but it ought to be ended, and some conclusion of a definite character should be come to about this particular area, and rebuilding on that area should be taken in hand.
It may be thought that there is no land available in the immediate neighbourhood for re-housing. That is not so. The particular area occupies only about one acre of ground, and there is immediately adjoining that area another acre of ground, at present unoccupied. It was previously occupied by big vinegar works, and as soon as purchased it could be used for re-housing the same number of people as are on the other site, or a greater number of people, because the people now there are housed in small houses of an old-fashioned pattern, which does not allow as many people to be housed on the area as could be housed in a quite healthy manner. I suggest that something should be done in regard to this matter. Let me say also that it is particularly desirable that something should be done, because at this moment it happens that Bethlem Hospital, that large asylum which is
within the boundaries of my constituency and just beyond the Obelisk, has decided that it must move from its present premises to a site outside London. The site of the Bethlem Hospital—the buildings, and the open space which is still preserved around it, although that is not available now for public purposes— extends to something like 13 or 14 acres of ground. The hospital is proposing to sell that ground for a commercial price, and so to get into its coffers the large amount of money which, no doubt, will be spent in a very suitable manner in the country. The hospital authorities, however, are precluded from doing that without bringing a Bill before Parliament. That Bill has already been presented in another place and has passed its Second Reading.
I refer to the matter now, because I consider that the questions of open spaces and re-building in Southwark are now in a particularly favourable situation for solution, inasmuch as with regard to this Zoar Street area there is actually an unoccupied acre of space which can be used, and with regard to South London and Southwark as a whole there is the whole of this Bethlem Hospital site, which could be brought within the purview of any scheme for planning out that part of London. I am speaking for all parties in Southwark in this matter, and I believe for all parties in the adjoining constituencies also. I am strongly of opinion that the site of Bethlem Hospital should be preserved for the most part as a public open space under the control of the London County Council, and as to a smaller area for the purpose of erecting dwellings for the working classes. There can be no doubt, from the public point of view, that that is the use to which the site should be put.
The hospital authorities are promoting this Bill with the idea of getting as much money as possible, and no one wishes to prevent them getting a proper price for the property. But I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are not only private considerations involved in this, but that there are big and very grave public reasons for keeping this as an open space and for working-class dwellings. There is, for instance, the overcrowding in the district; there is the lack of playing fields for children in the district; there is the large number of
children in the district; there is the further fact that Bethlem Hospital does not stand as a commercial proposition, that is to say, it has not raised, by some enterprise of its own, hundreds of thousands of pounds and bought land which it has every right to dispose of. It has, in fact, had very substantial help out of public funds in the past. In another place a Noble Lord gave the figure of £70,000 as having been contributed by Parliament to Bethlem Hospital. Let me deal with the very urgent necessity for the provision of some open space in that particular part of London. I have here some figures very kindly supplied to me by friends of mine on the London County Council. They show that in Southwark the percentage of area occupied by open spaces is 1.1, whereas the percentage in Westminster is 27.7, ir. Deptford it is 2, and Poplar is comparatively aristocratic with 3.7.

Mr. THURTLE: What about Shoreditch?

Mr. GUEST: I will endeavour to give the hon. Member the figure for Shore-ditch, but I cannot put my hand on it at the moment. The amount of open space in Southwark is therefore actually less than in any other district in London with the exception of the City of London, and—according to this table—Chelsea, but in the case of Chelsea certain very large spaces which are actually open are excluded because they are not under the control of the London County Council, while there is Battersea Park, which is immediately opposite Chelsea. As regards Southwark, there is very little open space indeed, and what is there is r.ot very suitable as a playground for children. There is a little garden by Blackfriars Bridge; there is the churchyard of Christchurch in Blackfriars Road: there is a garden in Redcross Street; there is the churchyard of St. George's Church and a playground known officially as Little Dorrit's playground, but known to the local inhabitants as the Gaol Ground because it is part of the ground on which the old Marshalsea Gaol was situated. I also call the attention of the House to the fact that the nearest parks of any kind are a considerable distance away. Southwark Park is about a mile away from the Borough, and Kennington Park is also some distance away, and both are separated from the Borough by
busy traffic routes which are of course dangerous for little children to cross.
The number of children in this part of London is enormous. In Southwark Borough and in the electoral district of Lambeth North, immediately adjoining— which would be served equally with Southwark by the opening of Bethlem as a public park—the number of children attending the schools is over 36,000. These children have nowhere to go, except to little graveyards and small playgrounds unless they travel a considerable distance from their homes. In fact, the facilities for playing games are so limited that it has been necessary to reserve ground right outside the borough at a considerable distance—the Tollgate Fields—for use as playing fields for the children of Southwark. In the circumstances, I urge that in a borough which is so overcrowded and which has so many slum areas which have not been tackled for such a long period of years, it is only reasonable to demand that the Bethlem site shall be treated as being more important from the public point of view than from the private point of view, and it is only reasonable to demand that, as regards the larger part of the area, it shall be turned into a public open space, and as regards the smaller part, that it shall be utilised as a site for the housing of the working-classes. In addition to the Zoar Street area, there are other areas in Southwark and Lambeth which could be dealt with at the same time as the Bethlem site is cleared, and a portion of that site could be used for re-housing. Thus you would get over one of the great difficulties connected with slum clearances.
We should be imposing no hardship upon the Bethlem Hospitals, which has other properties. What the exact amount of these is I do not know, but it is referred to in the Act of 1901, and apparently constitutes a very considerable amount. Under the Act of 1901, which regulates the Bethlem Hospital foundation, the present buildings and sites are specifically reserved from being alienated, disposed of, or leased in any way by the governors and authorities of the hospital, whereas the other properties can be disposed of freely. All I am asking is that the London County Council should try as early as possible to come to some agreement with the authorities of the hospital in order to secure this site for
public use on the most favourable terms which can be obtained. I am aware that the London County Council have decided unanimously to petition against the Bethlem Hospital Bill, and while that is a perfectly correct procedure, and one which will have due effect, it would be much better, if it could be managed, to have a friendly conference where all the parties concerned could meet together, rather than to have the matter fought out. I am all for arbitration and agreement rather than warfare, and this seems to be an occasion when the method of conference might be used with advantage.
I would further urge that the London County Council should realise that it has to shake its shoulders and do something which it has not done before with regard to slum clearances. We cannot go on year after year having amiable discussions and hearing our friends say they are very sorry that nothing can be done because there is not enough money, when people are being maimed and crippled and the death-rate is being seriously increased by the existing conditions. The time has come to make an effort to end those conditions, once and for all. Now when certain sites are falling vacant, it can. be done in very favourable circumstances and we should make an effort to clear away a large part of this blot upon London which is caused by the existence of slum areas. I know I have the sympathy of hon. Members opposite who represent the county council and that they assent to a large part of what I say, but it is no good sympathising and assenting unless something is done. In this particular matter since 1903 efforts have been made to get the Zoar Street area cleared, but they have been unsuccessful, and the conditions now are worse than they were formerly. There are other areas just as bad in this district and in other parts of London. To-night some hope ought to be held out, that the people in these slum areas will not merely get sympathy and kind words but that action will be taken to remedy the bad conditions.

Sir GEORGE HUME: I cannot complain at the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) opened the discussion. He dealt with us gently and we of the county council agree that this House has every right on an occasion of this kind to get such information as it may require. I will do my best to meet
the questions which have been raised. Probably one of the most important points with which my right hon. Friend dealt was that in relation to the County Hall. It has been said over and over again of the County Hall in the past, that they started the construction of the County Hall without having counted the cost. Two years ago I had the privilege of supporting a Bill of this kind, and I then said a few words on this subject, but apparently they have not gone home. I desire to give the facts shortly if what took place at the inception of the County, Hall. The County Office Site (London) Act, 1906, empowered the Council to purchase land for the purpose of erecting the County Hall and authorised expenditure from time to time not exceeding £655,000. The actual expenditure on the site was £617,032. As regards the building on the site, the council did not need to obtain any special powers from Parliament, inasmuch as the necessary powers to provide offices were conferred by the Local Government Act, 1888, subject, of course, to provision being made for expenditure on capital account in the annual Money Acts. The Standing Orders of the council have not required any estimate of the total cost to be stated in the annual Money Bill, but such estimate was prepared before the work was undertaken, and the council has always been ready to give any information required by Parliament thereon, and I attempted to do so two years ago.
The original estimate of cost, excluding furnishing, as reported to the council on the 18th April, 1905, namely, prior to the application to Parliament for site powers, was £600,000 for the site, £44,000 for the embankment, and £1,056,000 for building. In 1913, before the work of building was put in hand, revised estimates were prepared, based on the accepted plans, and they were as follows: site, £622,309; river wall and vaults, £86,120; building, £1,524,568, or a total of £2,232,997. The council has not passed any resolution as regards the erection of what we know as section D, that is, the remaining section of the County Hall, and a detailed estimate for this section has not yet been prepared, but, on the best information obtainable at the present time, the approximate estimated total cost of the County Hall, including site and furnishing, is now £3,850,000, of which £3,098,385
had been expended on the 31st March, 1925. The details are: site, £617,032; embankment, £85,141; building, furniture and incidentals, £3,147,827; or, in all, £3,850,000. This, I am glad to say, is £233,000 less than the figure given to the House by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir Cyril Cobb) a year ago, the completion of sections A, B and C resulting in a saving of that amount as compared with the estimate. The large increase over the 1913 figure is owing to changed conditions due to the War and the stoppage in the work of erection which was in progress at the time of the War, and, as the House knows, when we had to proceed again prices were altogether different.
That, quite shortly, gives the position as regards the County Hall. The council at the present moment has not yet decided as to when the extra work of the final section is to be put up. The raft foundation for that section has just been completed, and the council is still considering when the superstructure is to be put up. It is a serious problem, because within three years' time it will probably be necessary to have that accommodation. Even to-day we cannot house the whole of our departments, which are spread out in various buildings outside the County Hall. On the other hand, it is an extremely serious matter, at a moment when we have all been saying, "Housing first," to take a large number of bricklayers away to carry on the work on the County Hall. We have only allowed quite a small sum, I think something like £50,000, for the new County Hall in these estimates, but I think it is extremely doubtful whether that sum will be required this year, for the reason which I have stated.
9.0 P.M.
There was a small point referred to in regard to Item No. 11, "Sale of Gas Acts." One of these offices is really for weights and measures, in Finsbury. As I have already said, we cannot accommodate in the existing building the whole of our staff, and it has been found necessary to provide accommodation outside the County Hall for these weights and measures offices and offices for testing gas meters. Another point raised by my right hon. Friend referred to Item No. 6. That does not include any expenditure on tramways, but is entirely for widen-
ing. It may be that when these widenings are effected—a very long delayed improvement—in one or two places where we may have a single line of rails, they will be doubled, but, of course, that is for the public advantage and convenience. In regard to Item No. 16, I am glad to be able to reassure the House that it does not represent an expansion. It represents an expenditure on such matters as improving the accommodation at the generating station, supplying a new motor set, building new stores, because it is proposed to get rid of the old stores in the Old Kent Road, and concentrate entirely now in the Greenwich area, the central repair depot, and the new building, the cost of which is included in this figure. It is also for, in part, remotoring some of the trams in order to enable them to travel more rapidly, as many of them are now doing. It is for matters of that kind.
As to Item No. 19, that is the only amount put up this time for anything in the shape of expansion. As the House knows, there is a Tramway Bill going through the House at the present time, which is intended to enable the County Council to extend the tramways system from a point from Southend right beyond Catford, near one of our estates, through the new housing estate, the Grove Park Estate, where there are something like 5,000 houses going to be put up, to the route on the other side. The original intention was, by the desire of the Woolwich Borough Council, and by the desire of the Lewisham Borough Council, to extend the line from Southend right through the Grove Park Estate into Woolwich, to connect up to the line on that side, so as to have gone through the Woolwich housing estate at the same time, but the wisdom of Parliament has not permitted that. By the forbearance of the House we had, at all events, a say in one part of that scheme. But that was not the object. The object was to build a series of huts where the facilities for travel are not so great. Perhaps I may be allowed to say just a word or two about the tramways. I do not think that will be out of order, because the tramways are constantly referred to in this House as a dying undertaking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University
himself practically assumed that, I think, in the few remarks which he made on the subject, although he is generally genial and forbearing. At the same time, may I say that that is the belief which is so strongly held, and has been for a long time, by some of my Scottish friends on this side of the House, who, whenever the question of tramways comes up say "scrap them!" I am very anxious that the House should understand the position and not be misled by the very skilful propaganda of some and by the natural animosity of motorists, of whom I assure the right hon. Gentleman I am not one. I use the trams and the omnibuses, the trams especially at night.
I should just like to give the House some figures, for I do not think it is generally realised what the part is which the tramways play in the London traffic problem. Take 1924, of which I have the figures here. In that year the tramways in the Metropolitan area—I am not speaking of the London County Council area at the moment—carried 960,000,000 odd passengers. The omnibuses carried 1,451,000,000. The tube railways— "Combine," Waterloo, and City line— carried 180,000,000 odd passengers, other local railways, including the District Railway, Metropolitan, Whitechapel and Bow, Great Northern and City Railway and North London, carried 369,000,000. On the suburban traffic trunk lines there was 322,000,000 carried. These are large figures, but from them we get the essential fact that the tramways, taken together, carry more passengers than the Metropolitan Railway, the tube railways, and the rest of the underground lines in the area. I do not think the share which the tramways to-day are taking in the work of carrying London traffic is generally realised.
Let us come to the London County Council. We are carrying something like 690,000,000 passengers in, our area. We have nearly 160 miles of line in the same area. We have over 1,500 cars. That is a terribly big undertaking to scrap.

Mr. ERSKINE: Why does it not pay?

Sir G. HUME: If my hon. Friend will give me the opportunity I will reply to that. Let us see what service the trams are rendering. Put quite briefly, let me say that first of all it is only the tram
undertaking which attempts really to deal with the rush hours of traffic. At that time, I think I am right in saying, the omnibuses do not take more than 20 per cent. of the passengers. Another service which it renders is the provision of workmen's services, the putting on of early morning trams for the workers, and at workers' fares. Again, hon. Members know the advantage of the trams by remembering that we should not be able, many of us, to get home from here except by the night service. Our competitors do not attempt to deal with that service. Then, again, the tramways of London not only construct roads, but maintain the roads to 18 inches on either side of the track, wherever the tramways are running. That is relieving the burden of the local rates in the upkeep of the roads, and the tramways, too, are not wearing out the roads. The tramways have to pay rates on the lines. They have to bear the cost of street widening and improvements, not merely for the benefit of the tramways, but of the whole traffic. These are burdens of public service which the tramways carry out.
Let me come to deficits. Let us try to realise exactly what is the position. If London people only knew the facts I think the services given would be realised. As my hon. Friends know, I am not suspected of being a municipal trader. Still, I believe in dealing with the facts as we find them. When we have a service of this sort carrying on work of the kind, it should be recognised that that work is being carried out. Let me test it in this way. In 1914 we paid £86,000 in rates on the tramways. For street widenings (debt charges) we paid £31,000. For debt charges (excluding widenings) and interest there was paid £307,000 odd. The redemption payments were nearly £398,000. That year we had a deficit of £88,000. In 1915 we had a smaller deficit. In 1916 we had another deficit. Then in 1917–18–19 we had a profit, after paying off debt and sinking fund. In 1918 the profit amounted to nearly £96,000. In 1920 we had a deficit. In 1921 there was a deficit of nearly £590,000. That was a terrible year for all traffic undertakings. There was a deficit in 1922, and in 1923 we had £232,000 to the good. That was not so bad. In 1923 came the onerous competition, multiplied exceedingly in that year. In which year alone, I think I am right
in saying, it increased something about 40 per cent. Then we had deficits in 1924 and 1925, but consider the magnitude of the undertaking—£4,000,000.

Mr. ERSKINE: What was the amount of the deficit in 1924?

Sir G. HUME: £160,000. I have got some figures here as to the position in which the omnibuses found themselves in 1917–18–19–20. We are in the unfortunate position that while our accounts are open to the public, the omnibus accounts are not so available. I do not know all, but I can say that in the years to which I have referred the omnibuses paid nothing into the pool. In these four successive years they took out £190,000, £210,000, £587,000 and £582,000, and £400,000 in 1924. So the omnibuses know what it is to pass through a bad period, but Members do not speak of scrapping the omnibus undertaking because it happens to have had bad times. In the trams we have an undertaking upon which something like £16,500,000 has been expended, and we have paid off debt to such an extent that there remains only a debt charge of about £8,500,000. We Save got a service which is running constantly, it is kept up to concert pitch out of revenue, and that service, with only £8,500,000 of debt upon it, has cost the ratepayers, out of their pockets, something less than £1,000,000. Is that a bankrupt undertaking? Surely not. I do not understand the meaning of the word "bankrupt" if that is a bankrupt undertaking; and if we were to sell the tramways to-day for the amount of debt that is on the undertaking we should have financiers tumbling over each other to purchase it. In face of that we hear this continual parrot cry of "Scrap the trams!" Do hon. Members realise what it would mean? Are they going to save anything to London by scrapping the trams? There is £8,500,000 to deal with as obsolete capital. You have got to get rid of that somehow, even in an undertaking which, it may be under the pressure of competition, is having a margin of loss. I call it a "margin of loss," considering the total sums that have to be dealt with. If you scrap the trams it would mean something like a fourpenny or fivepenny rate for London.
I venture to say no man in his senses who has had anything to do with municipal politics in London would dare go to
London with the cry of "Scrap the Trams." We hear that cry from those who are articulate, but not from the great mass of Londoners, the workers, who know what service the trams give to them, and I for one, although I have been charged for years with having the intention of scrapping the trams, have never dreamed of doing so mad a thing. The day of the trams will be over when we get a vehicle of the same capacity to run on the streets without rails. Not till then could we afford to do it, not merely from the pound, shillings and pence point of view, but from the standpoint of congestion. We have calculated it out over and over again, and if we were to replace the trams by motor omnibuses we should, in wet weather certainly, have such a jam in the streets that it would not be possible to get along. I hope I have not said too much on the tram question, but I have had to sit here listening to attacks made by hon. Members in various parts of the House, a good number of them near me, and I have waited for this opportunity to say a word in defence.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I never in my life spoke of scrapping the trams, but my suggestion was that as they have not paid up to the present—[HON. MEMBERS: "But they have!"]— It is not desirable to spend another £1,000,000 or so, as this Bill suggests, in extending them.

Sir G. HUME: I do not suggest for one moment that my right hon. Friend ever used the term "Scrap the trams," but I would point out that we are not proposing to expend £1,000,000 or so on extending them. It is a relatively small sum; although I scarcely like to give a figure without being quite sure about it, I think the total cost will amount to not more than £250,000. That does not come into this 12 months' estimate, but may extend into the six months beyond, and it is really for the purpose of carrying on more efficiently the service which we now have. The speeches to-night have really carried me back to the other side of the bridge; the atmosphere here is exactly the same. We are attacked from two sides. We are attacked because we spend too much money, and we are attacked because we do not do enough, and the great problem is to know how to walk the tight-rope without falling off. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark North (Mr. H.
Guest) wants to "ginger us up"—I do not know whether he used that term, but he has used it often in the matter of slum clearances. We need no "gingering." I venture to think my hon. Friend has not followed the proceedings of the council so closely as he did at one period when we had the advantage of his company. The instructions to the Housing Committee are to get ahead as fast as ever they can, both with housing and clearances.

Mr. ERSKINE: Have those instructions had any effect whatever?

Sir G. HUME: Let us see. I will deal first of all with clearances, and I would direct the hon. Member's attention to what we have in hand. We have in our Estimates, under the heading of "Acquisition and Clearing of Unhealthy Areas" schemes undertaken by the council. Assisted schemes under the Act of 1919 include the Brady Street, Bethnal Green, area, where we are proposing to spend £35,000; the Hickman's Estate, £21,000; the Tabard Street, Southwark, area—a small sum there, because they are finishing off. Ware Street, Shoreditch, also gets a turn—over £34,000 this year and £20,000 in the six months beyond.

Mr. THURTLE: A somewhat belated turn.

Sir G. HUME: The unfortunate thing is that the need is so great for slum clearance work that it is impossible for any organisation, no matter how big it is, to tackle the whole problem at once, and when I tell the House the areas that are being dealt with Members will see that the effort being made is not a small one and covers various parts of London. Take the assisted schemes under the Act of 1923. There is £150,000 estimated this year, and £60,000 for six months, beyond for work in Poplar—Baker's Alley, Birch-field Street, Bell Lane.

Mr. LANSBURY: We have been waiting 21 years.

Sir G. HUME: The Council has scarcely existed as long as that. Then there is China Walk, Lambeth; Hatfield Street, Southwark; Wyndham Road, Camberwell; Georges Road and Rann Street, Islington; Ossulston Street, St. Pancras; and there are other schemes in Deptford and Greenwich—hon. Members
will see that I have succeeded getting a little bit done in my own area. Then you have the erection of dwellings by the council under the 1919 Act—the Baker Street scheme, the Tabard Gardens Estate, Hickman's Estate, the Mare Street scheme; and under the 1923 Act you have 59 houses on the East Hill Estate, and there are some others not worth referring to.

Mr. H. GUEST: I asked specially for information about the Zoar Street Estate, and I have done so almost, I may say, by the suggestion of his own party on the London County Council. I have in my hand a report of a delegation from the Southwark Borough Council to the London County Council, and Colonel Levita, replying to them, suggested to the deputation from Southwark that the council should ask Members of Parliament for the borough to take national steps, through the medium of Parliament and otherwise, to focus attention on this insanitary area. I hope he will not take this is an unfriendly act, and that he will give some information about this area.

Sir G. HUME: I have not taken anything as an unfriendly act. I recognise that any of us who know the conditions in portions of our own areas cannot help pressing to try to get this particular area dealt with prior to another. The Council Housing Committee is being attacked on all sides. I do not try to minimise in the least what has been said about the conditions of this particular area in Southwark, and I hope it will be possible to bring that particular area into the programme of work at a very early date. We are gradually eating into it, and we are gradually extending our services. We are spending money as fast as we can get work done, and it is no use spending money without getting work done. It takes an immense amount. I do not think hon. Members realise what it means to get up 12,000 houses in a year. It means an immense amount of organisation and foresight. I agree that in years gone by we have been very slow in developing, but to-day the national conscience has been so stimulative that I believe we are all as eager as possible to see that a lot of those areas are cleared. The difficulty is to re-house under existing conditions. That is why we have to go very slowly indeed, after the clearances are made, in
getting people out of their houses. It has to be prepared for. It is strange to what extent people living in those surroundings have to be taken miles away from those surroundings to areas to which they have not been accustomed. I hope I have not wearied the House. I have attempted, as far as I could, to deal with the points raised, and I hope possibly some of my friends will be able to deal with other points, should they be raised later on. I feel sure that the House would not take any step to hamper the action of the London County Council in getting a Bill of this sort, because two-thirds of this capital expenditure is for housing purposes, and there is no difference of party in the desire to see the erection of houses being pressed forward.

Mr. G. HARVEY: It is not altogether an easy thing for me to address the House of Commons, small as it is, for the first time. I recognise the difficulty, but I look round the House, and see friends mostly from the other place across the water, and I always look on the County Hall as the spawning ground for the little fishes of the House of Commons. When no one was looking, I came across the Thames, and managed to find myself in the House of Commons, somewhat unexpectedly. With regard to the Bill before the House, I believe in having this matter considered in the fullest detail, and it has been a pleasure for me to listen to the explanations of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume). We have been told that the London County Council do not want gingering up. It is the first concern of any description, business or otherwise, that I have ever come across that does not want gingering up, and I congratulate it—if he will excuse me saying so—on its self-sufficiency. There are two points I would like to emphasise. One is anticipated and one is not anticipated. On the first, we have heard various discussions and remarks already. I refer to the tramways. At the present time the tramways are growing year by year a definite charge on the rates. As far as I can see there is nothing to stop them continuing to be a burden on the rates, when their expenditure to revenue is over 87 per cent. of the total receipts. It leaves no margin whatever, and that suggests to me one of two things; either the bureaucracy of the County Hall is too severe for the undertaking, or the
fares are not sufficient to carry the undertaking to success. I am not one of those who suggest that the tramways are obsolete. They are getting obsolete, but at the present time I should be one of the last in this House to suggest that they should be scrapped.
There is no getting away from the fact that the tramways fill a very necessary adjunct to the transport of the citizens of London to and from their homes. The thing that strikes me is that here you have a business that has got plenty of patrons, and inasmuch as it has plenty of patrons, I ask myself why does it not succeed? I should like to suggest that the London County Council have an investigation committee into the organisation, because we all know that in municipal undertakings or in national undertakings, it matters not which, there are a great number of bureaucrats who dig themselves in to a sort of Hindenburg line and defend it against all comers. I am certainly not an advocate of municipal undertakings in any shape or form, and I look upon the London County Council tramways as a case in point. If it were a business undertaking, certain people in connection with it would feel themselves immediately responsible for its success at the present time, because they know perfectly well that success or no success a deficit is paid for out of the rates. In the case of a public undertaking, if you get a lot of people sitting there snugly in their offices, wherever they may be, they will have to give way to somebody with more energy and more grit. Whenever you get a great undertaking of this description you get drones, and I should like to see that those who get the most money do the most work, either mentally or otherwise. I have heard people at the County Hall advocating that no rate should be charged, but that reminds me of businesses in regard to which they would make very large profits if they had no expenses to pay. I heard once a distinguished accountant say something in the County Hall about capitalising repairs and renewals, but these are things which I should never think of capitalising.
Then again the sinking fund was susupended. Why, in all conscience, are municipal undertakings to be treated with a most-favoured-nation Clause? We are
told that the assets which are left to the London County Council amount to between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 and they are said to be worth that amount of capital, but any undertaking that does not pay cannot be worth anything. It is a question of the scrapping value, although I would not suggest scrapping the undertaking. They suspend the sinking fund because they say the assets are equal to the unpaid capital, but I do not agree. They are advocating in the present Bill further capital outlay on the trams. The only point I wish to emphasise in connection with that particular undertaking is, that every single item of the tramway undertaking ought to be submitted to the closest scrutiny. Large undertakings of this kind are generally managed by the officials. It is true there is a committee, but it is constantly changing and, good as the committee or the chairman may be, and willing as they may be to give their attention to the working of the undertaking, they are constantly changing, and, in the end, it is the officials who must control the situation. Of course, the officials are paid, and they want looking after. Up to the present this undertaking is not a business proposition
On the point I am now going to raise I know that I shall be courting a considerable amount of criticism both here and outside—I refer to the expenditure of the London County Council on education. I am not going to decry education as such. I am a believer in education that will give an equal chance to all people, whatever their station of life may be. I do say that the last year of a boy's school life ought to be a matter of very serious care with the Education Committee of the London County Council, because it is necessary to instil into these youths the principles of getting on. It is necessary to make these youths feel the responsibility of life which they must face immediately after leaving school. The tendency of the curriculum in elementary schools, as in other schools, is first of all to encourage theoretical education at the expense of practical education. When a youth leaves school at the age of 14 if he has been taught properly he can go out into the business world and apply for a situation and be admitted and encouraged and helped to reach the top—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I do not desire to interrupt the hon. Member in his maiden speech, but is this not rather a matter for the Board of Education. If the hon. Member can show me that this is a matter connected with the London County Council Bill, it will be in Order, but he seems to he raising a rather general question.

Mr. HARVEY: I was referring more to the question of economy, because after all is said and done economy must affect the capital expenditure, and I was going to refer to one particular thing where a short time ago education being given to boys of 14 and 16 was dropped because it was considered impracticable and entailed a considerable amount of expenditure. I am aware that some people believe that expenditure of this kind is necessary for efficiency. The principal thing I want to show in connection with the education of the youth of this country is that the curriculum of the schools and the expenditure on education should be directed towards making efficient citizens. We want to do everything we possibly can in regard to our expenditure and our encouragement of education to make the youth of the country efficient and capable citizens. The real value of a youth is created by the understanding he derives in the ordinary course of his employment.
The principal thing in education I would like to see is more money devoted to evening classes by which a youth after he leaves his work can be offered those facilities which are necessary for making him an efficient citizen. Sir James Barrie once said that he had many times seen the stars go out before he started his next day's work, and he is not alone in that respect. It is only by efficient, intelligent and persistent work that the youth of this country can gain the prizes which are going in the world to-day. I fully recognise the value of good elementary education and good teaching, and that is essentially the business of the London County Council.
I am all out in every possible way to encourage the teachers and the scholars. and I am a great believer in good education. I have always taken a great deal of interest in it, and what I have always in my mind is that I should like everything possible to Be done to avoid
derelicts. There are derelicts at both ends of the social scale. I should like while advocating theory combined with practice to see considerably more money spent on practice than on theory, so that we may avoid not only the derelict but also that dreamer who is creating as much trouble in London as in the East to-day— the impossible individual who has only theoretical ideas to guide him. I hope that this Money Bill of the London County Council will have not only to-day but on all future occasions the extreme scrutiny of this House before it passes.

Mr. HARRIS: As a backer of this Bill, I feel that it is a responsibility of mine to support the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) in his very able and interesting defence of its contents. There is in the country, in London, and in this House, a general and rather natural misunderstanding of the accounts of the London tramways. I can understand that those accounts, when superficially viewed, may seem to suggest a very serious financial position, and, so long as this House has the business of approving of the capital requirements of London, there is every justification for a severe scrutiny of the accounts. The House has that responsibility, and I do not find any fault with the desire of hon. Members, whether from London or from outside London, for full information. I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the last speaker on his maiden speech. He is an old colleague of mine on the London County Council, and I am very glad that he has made his maiden speech on London. He could find no more fitting question on which to speak for the first time, especially as he has had some years of experience as one of the governors of London.
I should like to say, incidentally, that, in criticising London administration, it ought to be remembered that every constituency in London has its representative. We have had the service of some of the ablest and most competent men in London, and I should like to remind the House that the majority on the London County Council, for the last 18 years, has been in the hands of the Conservative party. It may be news to the House, but the council, like this House, is run largely on party lines, and the majority has the choice of the chairman and the adminis-
trators. They are, therefore, not prejudiced in favour of municipal trading. On the contrary, the hon. Member for Greenwich will bear me out when I say that the great majority of the county council come there pledged up to the hilt to oppose Socialism in any form, to support private enterprise, and not to embark on any public undertaking unless they feel satisfied that it is sound financially and necessary because of the circumstances and conditions of London.
The whole confusion arises from the peculiar conditions of local government finance. We are not allowed to make out our accounts on the same basis as a private company. The figures of a private company are very easy to understand, because the purpose of running a trading company is to pay dividends to the shareholders, and, so long as the shareholders get their dividends and there are satisfactory reserves, the shareholders are satisfied and the shares stand at a good price on the Stock Exchange. In municipal affairs, however, whether in Manchester, Glasgow or London, we are governed by regulations, laid down first by the Local Government Board and now by the Ministry of Health; and the first and foremost of those regulations is that we have to pay, out of the profits or earnings of a municipal undertaking, whether gas, water, electricity, or tram ways, firstly, the interest on the capital borrowed from the public, and, secondly, a sinking fund to wipe out the whole capital cost in 25 years, some of the assets having to be wiped out in a shorter period. The whole confusion over municipal tramway finance arises out of the fact that the accounts show, firstly, the interest on capital, and, secondly, sinking fund, and, if those cannot be provided, the accounts appear to show a loss. I should explain that the finances of the London County Council go through a very severe audit— not only the audit of their own Controller, but also the audit of the Ministry of Health. If our tramways had been owned by a company or by any private undertaking, there would have been payable in dividends no less a sum—and this was not made quite clear by the hon. Member for Greenwich—than nearly £12,000,000. The exact figure is £11,974,000. That sum has been used, firstly, to pay interest on the capital invested, and, secondly, to
wipe out the capital cost. That is the reason why the finances seem to show a loss.
The total capital expenditure on the tramways up to the 31st March, 1923— there has been very little capital expenditure since—was £16,500,000, but, owing to the reduction of debt by the means to which I have referred, there now appears owing, instead of £16,500,000, only a sum of £9,135,000. It is for that reason that the hon. Member for Greenwich was able to point out that if the tramway undertaking were offered at the sum now appearing in the accounts, namely, a little over £9,000,000, any private undertaking would be pleased to buy it at that price. In other words, the ratepayers of London have adequate security for their liabilities, and the assets standing at their book value would more than meet any possible calls upon them. I hope I have made that clear to the House, because it is very necessary to understand that this immense undertaking is not merely carrying an enormous number of passengers, is not merely giving great convenience to the public by all-night services and workmen's fares, and is carrying the peak load during the rush hours, but is really in a sound financial position, and, if it were owned by a private company, would be able to pay ample dividends to the shareholders.
I am not going to say that the management and organisation is perfect. On the contrary, I have no doubt that, if we had a more progressive and more energetic county council, we might get better results. Hon. Members opposite are largely responsible for the county council we have had. We have been cautious, timid and unenterprising. I believe the management could be improved. It might be necessary to go into the open market to get the most competent manager that could be obtained, but, if it is necessary to pay several thousands a year to get one able and competent official administrator for our railways, the county council, with the large business it has to carry on, would be perfectly justified in doing the same. Surely the responsibility is on the elected representatives of the county council, who are after all elected by the ratepayers and are responsible to the ratepayers. Surely they can be trusted to manage their own affairs. At any rate I think on the figures I have shown the House, the House is perfectly justified in passing this money Bill. There is absolute
security in the assets, not only the tramways but the housing estates, for any money the House of Commons approves. The idea that is spread abroad that the tramways are not financially sound is not only unfair, but is a handicap to the whole undertaking and gives a false impression abroad, and I am glad to have an opportunity to back up the hon. Member for Greenwich, who for so many years was chairman of the Tramway Committee, in his assurance that the concern is sound financially and provides adequate security for the money lent.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I am sure all of us are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Greenwich for the explanation he has given, and as I have some more questions to put, he having intervened early in the Debate, I trust some other Member will be good enough to deal with them. I think the House has heard enough not to require the matter of the tramways to be dealt with any more fully. I am quite convinced that we cannot dispense with tramways as a means of carrying our population at present, but in view of the increasing street congestion, the time will shortly come when the county council will have to review the question of tramways in the inner areas of London with a view to considering what is to be its future policy with regard to transport when the tramways can no longer get along the streets owing to the extreme pressure of traffic. I want to say a word on the subject of open spaces. The figure which is down under Item 3, £75,720, for extensions and acquisitions of open spaces, is a very modest figure, limited no doubt, by the opportunities for acquisition and extension, and not by the good will of the county council or any desire on the part of the public of London to limit the opportunities of recreation and game-playing, and so on. I want to ask whether the council have any policy, or in their policy do they include the question of possibly acquiring the White City on the one hand, and whether they can do anything for the constituency I represent, who are anxious at some date not far distant to acquire as an open space the Earl's Court ground, or at any rate that portion of it which lies in our borough.
10.0 P.M.
The figure in Item 4—Housing Acts—is by far the largest in the whole of the Estimates. For the 12 months, and for the
succeeding six months, it amounts to no less than £10,500,000. In order to be able to privide the amount of work in house building represented by an expenditure of that kind, the completest co-operation is necessary on the part of everyone concerned, not only the council and this House in assisting in the provision of the money, but also those whose duty it is to do the work of house building, and those whose function it will be to provide the necessary material. I want to ask how much of that figure of £10,500,000 it is proposed to devote to the question of re-housing in inner London. The council has so far devoted itself for the most part to the laying out of housing estates on the outer circle of London. That policy has succeeded up to a certain point. As we have heard, it brings with it problems of its own. The housing of your people on the outer circle of London involves dispossession of those who are accustomed to live in other areas, and having got them there you have to provide the means, if they do not already exist, to enable them to get to and from their work. But quite apart from that, there are hundreds of thousands in our city who cannot leave the neighbourhood where they live and go to Becontree, Bellingham, Tottenham and Barnes, or some places even nearer. Their conditions of work, even the means at their command, do not permit of their taking a long journey every day to and from their work. After all, even if they could do that, who is going to say that a man, who has been accustomed for years to live in a neighbourhood, who has his friends and relatives and associations in that particular neighbourhood, is to be torn up by the roots, so to speak, and put out, say, at Becontree? Not only occupation but also associations are quite legitimate claims on the part of families of that kind, which would entitled them to the very gravest and most material consideration.
I want to know from the county council how far their policy in the immediate future provides for the re-housing of our people in the inner areas of London. Of course, to do that we have to re-plan a lot of our streets, which are quite inadequately used and do not house nearly enough people considering the space they occupy. One's inclination naturally
runs to an improvement scheme such as that which has recently been produced by the county council, the St. Pancras building scheme—that is, large, high, capacious buildings which will hold a great many people, buildings which can be provided with flats and tenements, up to date on labour-saving lines, where by building up you can save space on the ground level, which enlarges the open space at your command, where you can provide roof gardens for the children, where each tenement flat can have a balcony for the baby to be put and rest in the sun, where you may have central heating, hot water supply, lifts, and all reasonable modern conveniences provided at a relatively low cost. That is only one possible means of using our space better and providing for the needs of the inhabitants of inner London. In addition to that, if the county council will only assist the boroughs, they will find that the boroughs are willing to do something on their own account to improve, enlarge and reconstruct some of the small, poor houses which are now so overcrowded. There you have almost a ready-made solution. You have your streets with the roadways made up and the drainage complete. If you can only enlarge those houses so as to give three rooms to a family now living in two, you will do a great deal to ease the situation. It is not a perfect solution of the problem of course, but if you can ease the situation, as might be dome by that means within the next 10 years, by that time let us hope the whole problem of our housing will be so much advanced that you will be able to provide something infinitely better. Of course, I know in order to do that you have got to provide what are called decanting areas, because before you can rebuild houses, you have to put the inhabitants somewhere else, and my solution is that local authorities should be empowered to acquire for short periods of occupation vacant spaces, and thereon to erect temporary housing accommodation. That is the difficulty, of course, that has been pointed out this evening with regard to slum areas. If you pull down these places, where are you to put the people? You must, therefore, provide "decanting" areas. I think I am correct in saying there are 1,900 odd
scheduled slum areas in London. The county council at the present moment is dealing, or has dealt, with something like 19. Perhaps someone will tell me the obstacle to getting on faster with this work, and if they will take the means of acquiring decanting areas. If the county council have not got the powers, I am sure the Ministry of Health will be very ready to assist to move Parliament to get the necessary legislation through, in order to hasten progress.
With regard to improvements—Item No. 5—considering the enormous amount of improvement needed in London, the sum mentioned does not seem to be any too great to devote to such a purpose. One is inclined to think the Improvements Committee of the county council must themselves, as did a well-known statesman on a historic occasion, stand amazed at their own moderation. The more we move about London, the longer we live in it, the more impatient we become, it takes so long to carry out improvements. One thinks about the Strand for one thing. What is the council doing with regard to a general policy of London improvements? After all, they are worth undertaking for their own sake and we know very well, from the example of the great Holborn-Strand improvement, they do in process of time pay. I hope the county council will not be weary of well-doing in a matter of that kind.
There are one or two particular improvements, which I have described before. They both deal with the question of bridges. One is the question of Wandsworth bridge. When are we going to have something done about that? The other is the question of the Cromwell Road bridge. It is a question that has been before London something like 40 years, and the improvement is more urgent to-day than ever. If only we could prevail upon the necessary authorities—and the London County Council should, of course, take the lead as the improvement authority in London—to carry through what has been very long contemplated, namely, a bridge to bring us over the different railway lines from the continuation of West Cromwell Road to some point either North or South of West Kensington Station, there you have a road where, with a slight deviation, it would carry you to the West and get a by-pass off one of
the worst congested areas in London— High Street, Kensington. The county council, when it brings into operation its housing scheme at Castlenau, Barnes, will need to consider an additional bridge. Hammersmith and Putney Bridges are overcrowded already, and if Cromwell Road Bridge were carried through, the obvious line of development from there would take us slightly southwest, and we should find ourselves face to face with the River Thames, and the necessity of carrying across a bridge and making a junction with the projected Chertsey arterial road. There you have a connection with the South-West road parallel with the Great West road. One travels on these splendid arterial roads, and as soon as you get to London: they cease, and you are met with congestion. Therefore, it is up to the county council to study all these questions. Let the county council prepare with boldness and vision a real development plan for London.
There is a question I want to ask in regard to Item No. 14—"Acts relating to education, Provision of schools and other purposes." I am familiar with a good many of the London County Council schools which one would be very glad to see rebuilt at the earliest possible moment. They are not particularly favourably situated. But with regard to their general programme of school building, how do the county council propose to get over the difficulty in the built-up areas? How are they going to build their schools on fresh sites without the demolition of present property? If they can get over that, one would be glad to know it, and heartily congratulate them on their achievement. With regard to the County Hall, one only hopes that when it is completed the staff of the county council, with so many activities, will not have increased so much that it is necessary to extend the County Hall in the manner of Scotland Yard, in order to accommodate its staff.

Sir G. HUME: If all these improvements which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned were carried out, we should have to double the capacity of the County Hall.

Mr. SNELL: I hope the House will allow me the privilege of congratulating an old colleague on the London County Council on his maiden speech in this
House, which I could have wished had been devoted to a better cause. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the need of the county council being gingered up with regard to its activities. My own recollection of the county council is that when sitting side by side with him I never received his support very much. But there is a certain amount of point in something he said. Why, he said, does not the London County Council tramway system succeed? The chief reason is that, being run by his political friends on the other side, it is slow in mind, and slow to take advantage of London's opportunities. I would also like to say a word respecting something that fell from the lips of the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan). He suggested that what we might do in the way of making decanting areas would be to take possession of vacant sites and there erect temporary dwellings. But the erection of those temporary dwellings would cost almost as much as the erection of dwellings on a permanent area. A much more profitable thing would be to take possession of the vacant houses and use them compulsorily, on the same terms, until new houses can be built for the working classes.
I would like to say something in support of this Bill, because it is not realised how very much London depends upon getting a Bill of this kind through the House of Commons. In this House we have been concerned during many days in getting the consent of the House to monies for the purpose of running the nation. It so happens that a great centre of population like London requires for its central governing body continual supplies of new services of one kind or another which have to be provided for through this Money Bill. It is the special privilege of this House to scrutinise the items that come before it, and it is its obvious duty to vote this Bill and leave it to the citizens of London to see that they get full value for the money which has been voted.
As an old member of the London County Council and one who at present feels very lonely without it, I would ask hon. Members not to feel too anxious about the method of government there. One hon. Member spoke about having waited for 40 years for something to be done. The London County Council does not act
with that indecent haste which would do things in 40 years. Everything there is done with very great deliberation, and hon. Gentlemen who are afraid of London's expenses getting out of hand, may take my word for it, as an old member of the county council, that its Finance Committee has a heart as hard as Pharaoh's, and that it is extremely difficult to get from it even the essentials of London government. London is at some disadvantage, which makes it open to criticism in this House. It is not as free as other municipalities to conduct its own life. No great city in the world is so hampered as the great city of London, so restricted by absurd limitations.
If we on this side of the House support the passing of this Money Bill, it must not be taken for granted that we are entirely satisfied with the way in which London's business is run by the county council. But we do know that local government in this country is, perhaps, the one thing most native to our genius, and one of the things of which we have the greatest right to be completely proud. London has all the possibilities in it of becoming in administration and in other ways the greatest and finest city in the world. What we require is not merely the technical and expert administration that we get on the other side of the river, but we require a certain amount of imagination that will foresee what are likely to be the changes in a short time.
Some comments have been made about the County Hall, and its cost. It would be justifiable on the part of the county council to answer those criticisms by saying, that if we had been allowed to complete the County Hall when it was started, London would have saved £1,000,000. But the Government, for its own purposes during the hour of national need, took possession of the building, or the shell of it, and held up its completion for a series of years, during which the cost of building doubled and trebled, and the cost now falls on the people of London. It is not generous, therefore, on the part of critics of London government to criticise this heavy expenditure when it was incurred for the sake of the nation.
I would like now to say a word about housing in general. There is no use of our merely thinking about building houses unless we connect that with the facilities
for getting to and from the areas in which those houses are built. In the district which I have the honour to represent— Woolwich—we happen to have a certain amount of vacant land on which houses can be built, but it is extremely difficult to get permission to build these houses, and then when they are built there is the difficulty of transit between Woolwich and London. If I might say a word in criticism of the London County Council tramways, it is that the journey from Westminster to Woolwich in a council tramcar reminds one of eternity more than anything else. We want that service speeded up to a greater degree.
The hon. Member for Greenwich talked about the all-night system of trams which he said he enjoyed on the South side of the river. On the North side we are not so fortunate. Though he lives on the South side, as all of us have not that pleasure, and if he would see that we who have to stay in this building late at night have the privilege of getting away to the North a little later, we should appreciate it. The London County Council, when all the criticism which can be made against it has been made, is by far the greatest civic governing body in the world. It has larger responsibilities than any other body, and in regard to its technical efficiency there is no ground for criticism or complaint. In answer to the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington, my own experience of the County Council officials is that they are entirely efficient. They have a pride in their job, and if every undertaking were as well served as that is by its official staff there would be no ground whatever for complaint against it.

Major SALMON: As a member of 20 years' standing of the London County Council, I would like to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) has said with regard to the staff of that body. But the reason which I have for participating in this Debate is because I felt that ft was incumbent upon the London County Council in regard to their tramway policy to have waited until the Traffic Board of London had reported to see if it was desirable that there should be tramway extension in different parts of the Metropolis. They were the originators
of the idea of having a Traffic Board set up. Parliament decided to set up such a board. Having that authority in existence, it is very unfair to proceed with tramway extension, because the board are excluded from considering tramways. They can only stop motor omnibuses running down a particular street, or say what number of omnibuses shall run. They are not permitted to discuss the question of trams. But while they are considering the problem of London traffic, we find that the London County Council come along to the House and ask for money to be voted for the purpose of the tramways, having no regard, in the bigger sense, to the general traffic conditions of London.
It is very desirable that, if we are to attack the problem of London traffic, we should approach it not merely from the county council point of view, which is biased with the idea of extending the trams—not that there is any justification for them to be so proud of the result of the trams. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) very cleverly gave reasons for the trams not paying, but he unfortunately omitted to tell the House that during the years 1919–20–21 it was only by the suspension of payment for renewal that there was not a considerably greater loss than appeared in the figures which he gave us. Only a few months ago the county council went to the Treasury and obtained permission to suspend the provision of money for repayment of capital, which really means that the county council for the next three years are saving £300,000 per annum, or an equivalent of the 3½d. rate, compared with they would have to pay if they had had to meet the usual charges. In discussing the tramways of London we have to remember that there is on the running of them a loss of over £560,000. I am not one of those who suggest that the trams of London should be scrapped, but I do feel that as long as that loss exists we are not justified in extending the system. We ought rather to consolidate what we have, and try to manage the system in such a way as to reduce the loss.
I do not shirk responsibility for having had something to do with the inquiry into the trams. There have been certain improvements made by the Committee that was set up to go into the matter. But it is impossible for any member of
the county council to stand up in this House and say that the trams are a financial success. A great deal of thought will be required to discover how omnibuses and trams in combination can be run for the benefit of the people of London, without having regard to private enterprise or municipal ownership. What we have to consider is the question how the combination can be managed, so that we do not have unnecessary and wasted effort, either on the part of the trams or the omnibuses. Why should there be such haste on the part of the county council to extend the system? That is my grievance, and it is one of the reasons why I have taken part in this Debate.
I would like to say one word with regard to the County Hall. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Greenwich say that he did not propose to advocate the building of a superstructure at the present moment. It would be a deplorable thing if £750,000 were spent for the purpose of bringing in two big departments of the county council now housed outside. I think some time should pass before money is spent on the building of a superstructure. I was also very pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that he did not contemplate building, because he thought the men employed could be much better employed on housing. If there is one thing on which the county council can be congratulated it is the manner in which they have dealt with the housing problem. They have tackled it in a manner which has shown an example to every other authority in the country. The hon. Member for East Woolwich said that the finance committee of the county council were hard in regard to money, but the House should be seized of the knowledge that the finance committee have always been prepared to vote any money necessary for the housing of the people of London. The difficulty has been to find sufficient craftsmen to do the building, and sufficient material. It has not been a question of money but a question of getting the houses built in a reasonable time. I hope, notwithstanding the criticisms which have been made on this Bill, that it will receive a Second Reading.

Mr. THURTLE: I desire to take up a few moments of the time of the House in discussing the question of housing and overcrowding in London, particularly in relation to Shoreditch. Shoreditch has
a special claim to consideration in this connection, because it has the doubtful distinction of being the most overcrowded part of this crowded City of London. It has a density of population of 57.6 per acre, and I frequently find cases among my constituents of people living five, six and seven per room and unable to get other accommodation. As I told the House two weeks ago there is one case, which still obtains, where a family of 10 is living in one room, and neither the town clerk, the borough surveyor nor anyone else, is able to find them other accommodation in the borough. The problem instead of getting less is becoming more acute. I do not know if hon. Members noticed the statistics in relation to the birth-rate in London which appeared about two days ago, but if they read the figures they must have noticed that the birth-rate in Shoreditch is the highest in the whole of London. It is 25 per thousand, double that of Westminster and nearly double that of Hampstead. I do not say that is a matter over which we can have much control, though I think it would be a good thing if that matter were discussed in this House. The mortality of Shoreditch, because of the dreadful conditions which obtain there, is also very high, and that I admit is a neutralising factor. In addition to the high birth-rate there is a gradual tendency to reduce further the limited housing accommodation available in Shoreditch by the acquisition of premises for commercial purposes. That may be an inevitable tendency, but it is something to be taken into account in considering the problem. The town clerk told me the other day that in the last 24 years the population of Shoreditch had decreased by 20,000, but, despite that fact, the housing problem is more acute to-day than it was 24 years ago, because the commercial demands on the borough for factories and workshops have made huge inroads on the amount of dwelling accommodation.
Reference has been made to slum clearances carried out by the London County Council, and I wish the hon. Member who spoke of "decanting" areas were present to hear what I have to say. Actually this overcrowded borough which I represent is being used by the London County Council as a decanting area for a slum clearance
scheme in another part of London. Into a place where they are living six and seven in a room, the county council is bringing fresh people in order to provide temporary accommodation for people who are being de-housed because of a slum clearance scheme in another area. If any fact were needed to establish the justification for the council taking steps to acquire, in some manner or other, the large number of empty houses which are available for the purpose of housing temporarily de-housed people from slum clearance areas, this fact ought to be sufficient. I am not going to say that the London County Council is not doing a good deal in the direction of providing additional housing accommodation, but I want to emphasise a point already made in this Debate, and that is, that the housing schemes which are being carried out by the council now are not any real and effective remedy for the problem as it exists in poor boroughs like the one I represent.
You have your Dagenham and your Becontree housing estates, where you have a limited number of houses, but you find, when you get an overcrowded family in touch with one of these houses, that, generally speaking, that family is totally unable to pay the rent which is asked for it. Families with an income of about £3 a week, with children included in the family, cannot possibly pay the high rents which are demanded for these London County Council houses on the new housing estates. If I might draw a kind of comparison, it is like taking a ravenously hungry man, with 6d. in his pocket, and telling him he can buy a meal, but that the only place at which he can buy it is the Ritz hotel. It is just as useless to offer to these overcrowded people in the slum areas of Shoreditch housing accommodation at Becontree or Dagenham at the rents which are being charged by the county council, and I suggest that if the council intend seriously to grapple with this problem, it will not only build houses, but it will make such financial arrangements as will enable the people who want these houses to occupy them; it will offer them to the poor people at rents which they are able to pay. There are members of the London County Council present who appear to think that London is not doing at all badly in the matter of this housing problem, but I
venture to say that it is not being looked at in the big, broad, imaginative way in which it ought to be looked at. The London County Council, if it were really doing its job, would not be contemplating an expenditure of £10,000,000 this year on housing, but an expenditure of at least £30,000,000, because the problem is so acute and so vast that it demands the expenditure of that sum of money.
It does not need me to tell this House what dreadful effects the present housing conditions have upon the health and the physique of the great mass of the population of London. The London County Council is being penalised in all sorts of ways by the prevalence of these housing conditions. The physique of the people is stunted, and there is a tremendous amount of ill-health. You get a very bad effect upon the ethics and morals of the slum population. Altogether it is almost impossible to calculate the evil and deleterious effect of these slum conditions acting on the population in the way in which they are at the present time. I want to appeal, even to the self-satisfied Members of the London County Council who might be listening to me now, that they should tackle this problem in a much more vigorous and drastic fashion than already they have done.
This London of ours is a city of which we are all proud. It is called the great heart of the British Empire. Well, it is a very serious thing that in this great heart of the British Empire there should be these huge cankers of slums. It is time that we started a big surgical operation to get rid of them. I would like to see something of the big schemes which were conceived during the War, something in the nature of the great imaginative effort which the War produced, brought into play in dealing with this dreadful problem of slumdom in London. I hope the London County Council will set out —they cannot alter their arrangements for this year—but set out in succeeding years to deal with this problem on the big lines on which it should be dealt with, so that in the time to come we shall be able to say that this London of ours, instead of being a disgrace to the Empire so far as its housing conditions are concerned, is a credit to the Empire and a model to the rest of the country.

Captain FRASER: May I join in the words of appreciation which have been
uttered in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for the Kennington Division of Lambeth (Mr. G. Harvey). I had the pleasure of being his colleague across the water for some time, and I am glad I have had the opportunity of hearing his valuable contribution to our Debate. There appears to me to be two or three points which have been raised in this Debate which it might be in the interests of the London County Council to consider. I am a strong supporter, not merely of the present majority of the county council, but of the council as an institution, not perhaps so well a recognised institution in London life as it should be. I am desirous of dealing with these points. They were raised, three of them, by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow. He said, amongst other things, that the county council leader in this House, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) had painted too rosy a picture of tramway finance, that he had pointed out that the conditions were not quite so bad as some others had made out, and that he had claimed that, far from the tramway concern having made persistent losses for some years, instead of the loss on its revenue account during the last few years, it had been the means of creating what is really a very valuable asset for the ratepayers of London, and one which they could, without question, sell for an amount, in my opinion, greater than the figure at which at present it stands on the books.
The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow said the hon. Member for Greenwich had neglected to mention the fact that certain repayments of capital, which are commonly charged against revenue, had for a time been suspended. That is perfectly true; but it is fair to point out that the county council, during the many years the tramways system has been in existence, have, because of the basis upon which they calculated that depreciation, paid off their capital at a very much quicker rate than was either necessary or prudent—well, perhaps not prudent because it is prudent to be conservative in matters of finance; but in their wisdom they considered they had provided for depreciation at too fast a rate, and that it would be perfectly fair to delay for a time the happy day when London will own its trams without any
debt whatever, and, in my opinion, will make a profit upon them for the ratepayers. That was a proper action, and one which, apart from their own opinion, could not have been taken without the consent of the Treasury. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow also said that certain renewal charges which have normally been placed on the revenue account had not been so charged during the years which the hon. Member for Greenwich referred to. I think I am right in saying that only a small proportion of those charges were so treated, though I am open to correction on that point. So far as renewals are concerned, the county council have always adopted a policy which I believe very few commercial companies entirely adopt, namely, that of charging every possible renewal, every possible charge of that sort, against their revenue account. Their finance has been so much in line with the best canons of conservative finance that they can afford, so to speak, to utilise a portion of the reserves which they have created, and as I maintain that the reserve they have created was larger than it need have been, it can legitimately be said that some portion of that reserve was an emergency reserve which they are now using. Under those circumstances I submit that the suggestion that the leader of the county council kept back some material facts in regard to the tramway undertaking falls to the ground.
One observation in regard to housing. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) speaks of the unhappy position in so many of our districts. I can confirm what he said about the distressing conditions of housing, for in the Division which I have the honour to represent there are conditions similar to those which he described. I do not think the description of those conditions, even though it is, perhaps, indulged in more freely by Members of the Labour party, is a matter about which they have any keener understanding than Members on all sides of the House. I submit that we are at one in our desire to remedy those conditions, and that a little co-operation from all sides would perhaps make it a little easier. He asked why the county council did not spend £30,000,000 instead of £10,000,000 on housing. I venture to ask, without
offence, "Why does he not bring some pressure to bear upon those who are really responsible for holding up building in London?' Why does he not endeavour to make provision for those men to work who could supply the skill necessary to bring about the use of that £30,000,000 if it were provided? It is not fair to make complaints of dilatory action in respect of county council housing when there were times when materials were lying on sites which the council had provided and when men simply could not be found to put up the houses. One of the main reasons was because ex-service men were not permitted to be trained as builders by the building trades unions. That is a consideration which it is fair to bring forward. The suggestion that the money was not available is certainly unfounded. Anyone who cares to examine the county council figures will see that something like £22,000,000 was provided by the county council from time to time for building purposes with the permission of this House, and less than half that amount was used because there was no labour available. I have no doubt in the matter, but I hope sincerely that the House will pass this Bill, not merely without any trouble but with some measure of sincere appreciation of the work which the county council has done and is doing, and will, to some extent, get out of its mind the prejudice it has against the council and its poor old trams and its immensely large building. There is an unfortunate prejudice on this side of the water in some quarters against the county council, and I venture to hope that its very beneficent work may be better understood, and we may pass this Bill not merely with unanimity but with good will.

Major TASKER: I hope the House will forgive me attempting to answer in the shortest possible manner some of the criticisms. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), who moved the Amendment, asked why the county council should be treated differently from any other municipal authority. It is in the Act of 1912. The second question was why are we providing no money for the bridge. No desire has been expressed for that bridge so far, therefore, we have not provided money. The most appropriate authority to deal with the question of the Zoar
Street area is the borough council, because the hon. Member who raised the matter told the House that immediately adjoining this very congested area there was one acre equal to that which was so covered with buildings.

Mr. H. GUEST: The borough council are unable to do that in the existing circumstances.

Major TASKER: I want to correct my hon. Friend. Under Part II of the Housing Act they have to apply to the county council for the money, and the council will give it to them. My hon. and gallant Friend, who represents East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) talked about dens in the constituency he represents. I would point out that already in that area there are over 70 acres of open ground. Several Members referred to the demolition of the slums. It is not realised that it is no use talking about demolishing houses in slums unless you have somewhere to house the people. That is our great difficulty, and it is increased by the various conditions under the Rent Restrictions Act.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) suggested that £30,000,000 expenditure should be incurred on housing, but I can assure the hon. Member that the county council have voted more money for the housing of the people than they have been able to spend, and the reason for this is that they have not been able to obtain labour or material. Reference has been made to Lambeth Bridge and Waterloo Bridge, but it can be seen by a reference to the budget of the London County Council that provision has been made for the rebuilding of Lambeth Bridge. There has been a consultation with the local authorities in regard to these bridges, and it was ultimately decided that the widening of Wandsworth Bridge should not be proceeded with because Lambeth Bridge would serve them better. I hope this Amendment will be withdrawn, otherwise the London County Council will have to close its doors.

Mr. MARCH: I want to ask a question about the ventilation of the Rotherhithe tunnel, and I want to know when it is going to be completed. I also wish to ask when the ventilation of the Blackwall tunnel is going to be undertaken. Perhaps the hon. Member will also tell me when the council are going to get on with the
widening of Cable Street and Brook Street. This work has been talked about for the last 25 years, but the council do not seem to be getting on with it. I hope that before long they will get a move on and get this work done.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

11.0 P.M.

Major CRAWFURD: When the Debate on the Finance Bill was interrupted, I was raising some points in connection with the motor industry and the things which had been left undone. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have done more for the motor industry and certainly more for the motor-using public than he has done by his excursion into the realm of tariffs. First of all I want to say one sentence on the present condition of the Road Fund itself. I want to remind the House that this fund has increased in the last four years from £11,000,000 to over £16,000,00; we are rapidly approaching a position where the Road Fund is increasing year by year and the expenditure on roads is very often stationary, or actually decreasing. If these two tendencies persist, there will be a great disparity between the money raised and the money spent. I want to remind the House and the Government that, when the Road Fund was first instituted, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in 1909, two things were made perfectly clear. The first was that the money raised for the Road Fund should be spent only on roads, and the second was that the contribution to the Road Fund should be strictly in proportion to road user by the particular vehicle concerned. I must say that in my view motorists in general will have very grave cause for complaint if the Road Fund is ever diverted to other purposes than the construction or maintenance of roads.
With regard to the suggestion I have thrown out that the motor industry might be helped, I am going to make four or rive practical suggestions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—or rather, if hon. Members do not like my calling them suggestions, I will say that I will state four or five ways in which the right hon. Gentleman might have done what he is now attempting to do with a tariff. I would suggest that this is a very proper moment for making these suggestions, because the Road Fund, as I have shown, is increasing. The first of these suggestions is that the time is ripe, and it would be fair, to reduce the tax on the lower-powered motor car. Again, the time is ripe to reduce the tax on the smaller commercial vehicle, on the ordinary motor cycle, and on the ordinary cycle with motor attachment; the time is ripe to allow periodical licences for three months to be taken out for motor cycles, as for motor cars; and it would be a very useful thing to give a rebate of, say, 25 per cent. on cars the engines of which are more than five years old.
I am supported in these suggestions by the fact that the types of vehicles which I have mentioned are paying a disproportionate amount for the use of the roads. According to calculations made by the Departmental Committee on, this question, which is still sitting, it costs about one-third of a penny per ton mile to maintain the roads. The small vehicle of 20 horse-power pays four-fifths of a penny; the motor cycle pays about half that amount; the light lorry pays 4 of a penny, and the London omnibus, which is one of the heaviest of all vehicles, pays 15. I am going to throw out the additional suggestion that the Government would do well to reduce the taxation on the smaller cars. I simply make these suggestions, and, if it is too late to incorporate them in the Budget this year, I would throw out the suggestion that the Government should give us some assurance that they will consider them before next year.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I feel in duty bound to say a word in answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman because he had the kindness to withdraw two Amendments on Report which might have started very long debates. I do not
think at this late hour the House would like me to go into the big subject he has raised. We admit readily that there are inequalities which might be remedied, and when we get the time, when the House is not sitting, we intend to go into the reorganisation of the taxation of motor-cars from top to bottom. I should like to say now that we still adhere to the tax from the point of view of formula and we do not intend to revert to a tax on petrol, but want to revise it from top to bottom on the basis of the damage done to the roads.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: No doubt in view of the relays that have been brought in to secure the easy passage of the Bill, it will be placed on the Statute Book very shortly, but some of us at least might be permitted to enter our final protest with regard to the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has assisted his class and his political friends. He has made a very remarkable statement. He said the late Chancellor of the Exchequer assisted the working classes by relieving them from a portion of indirect taxation and consequently he was entitled to assist Super-tax payers. There is a very wide difference, not only with regard to the people who were paying these indirect taxes last year and the Super-tax, but also in the circumstances of these two sections. Most of the people who were paying the indirect taxes last year, and who were assisted by the late Chancellor were members of the working classes. This year the relief is given to Super-tax payers. It is a remarkable feature of this year's financial statement that the income of the working classes shows a reduction of approximately £300,000,000, whereas the incomes of those who are getting income assessable to the Super-tax have not only increased in amount, but the numbers who are drawing such incomes have increased. The workers, on the other hand, have not only suffered a reduction in their income, but in numbers; they have also suffered a reduction in those who are getting any income at all save such as are fortunate enough to be getting it from the Employment Exchanges. In his very last speech on the Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer once again made it clear that the Budget that he has engineered so skilfully through the House is assisting only one
section of the community and is in no way assisting the section of the community who require most assistance.
One other thing the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the other evening—and I have no doubt that is one of the reasons he is in the position he is in to-day—was that the perfect man was he that changed his opinions most often. I think, in that case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be the most perfect politician in the United Kingdom, if not in the entire world. He has stated that he is not introducing any Protectionist duties in this Finance Bill. He mentioned a communication he had received from Courtaulds, stating they were not intending to increase the price of their commodities before the 30th September. The Chancellor of the Exchequer read that out with great gusto, and made it appear to this House, that because of that single letter he had received, the tax that was being put upon silk and artificial silk would not increase the price of those commodities. As a matter of fact, as far as I can gather from those to whom I have applied for information, it will take almost until the end of September for the firm of Courtaulds to work off the stock they have at the price they paid before this tax will be imposed, and, consequently, they are not giving to the people of this country any consolation, nor do they deserve any credit for what they are doing. They will be putting on the additional cost when the next tax is being imposed on any future stock they bring into this country.
There is one other point I want to mention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement with regard to the amount of debt that this country had to carry, and the amount of income that was necessary to meet the debt that was bearing upon us so heavily. I suggested in this House, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was then going through one of those changes in his political faith that he seems to go through so often —I suggested, I think on two or three different Finance Bills, that one way out of the difficulty of the burden of taxation would be a reduction in the interest that was being paid upon War Loan. That was received in this House by the opposition of the Members on the other side, who at that time were not the Tory party, but a combination of Tories and Coalition
Liberals. I again suggest that, so long as you are having this heavy burden of taxation due to the War, it is going to be necessary to look for fresh methods of imposing taxation upon different articles. The taxation from which this country is suffering is not due to anything the people in this country have done. The great increase of taxation in this country is due to the stupidity, the ignorance and the malignance of those who have been governing this country during the past 10 or 15 years. Had they been what they claimed to be, statesmen capable of steering the country through its difficulties, the country would not to-day have been saddled with the burden of debt, the interest on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is endeavouring to meet.
All the faults of our past governors prior to and during the War have to be paid for to-day by the people of this country, and, in the main, by the working people, so long as the Government, whether it be a Tory Government or a Government of any other kind, does not meet the situation boldly, does not face up to the issue squarely, does not go to the people who during the War made no sacrifice, but merely handed over their money at the high rates of interest that were then being offered, while the youth of the country were sacrificing blood, limb and muscle. When these men are, many of them, walking our streets, blinded wrecks of humanity due to the crass stupidity of our old governors, the time has arrived when some of those privileged people should show that they can rise above class feeling and mere love of money and the desire to flaunt their wealth in the face of the starving multitudes of this country, as at Ascot. It is time that these people recognised the difficulties of the country by offering to make the sacrifice, instead of waiting until the people compel them to make the sacrifice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I know that this is not a popular subject to hon. Members on the other side. I know that at this time of night they do not like plain speaking, any more than they like plain living. The conditions to-day have grown so bad and have grown so much worse since this Government came into office that I consider it necessary to divide against the Third Reading of a Budget which is purely a class Bud-
get, which ignores entirely the misery of the people outside, which gives to the wealthy people of this country that to which they are not entitled, which makes still further for the misery of the poor, and which has been brought forward by a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has changed his opinions as often as it is possible for any human being to change his opinions, and who in his first Budget finds it necessary to placate the party behind him so that they will feel that he is secure as a Tory now and henceforth. [Interruption.] I am speaking for the people I represent, many of whom are going through starvation at the present time. If hon. Members opposite went into their constituencies as often as I go into mine and as some of my colleagues go into theirs, and heard the pitiful tales of my constituents there would not be such a feeling of liveliness at this time of the evening— [HON. MEMBERS: "Sob stuff!"]— rather sob stuff than the snob stuff which we get from the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do something!"] You have robbed the people too long, you and your class. You have done too much to the people of this country. It is because of the things that you and your party have done to the people that the country is in the state in which it is to-day. I am prepared to go into any industrial constituency with any hon. Member who supports the Finance Bill, and take the mind of the people in that industrial constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oldham!"] Go into any constituency that is not thimble-rigged with the vote, go into any constituency that has been going through unemployment for the past three years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Old ham!"] Oldham has not been going through unemployment for the past three years. It is a curious thing that Hon. Members on the other side should talk about Oldham. They were afraid to fight Oldham. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the House to allow the hon. Member to proceed without interruption.

Mr. MACLEAN: I can excuse the feelings of hon. Members opposite. Of course, they are not concerned very much with the unemployment that exists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] When I say that they are not concerned with unemployment, they have a number of unemployed friends of theirs, but they have a big unemployment dole and they are not turned down by the Employment Exchange. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] If hon. Members interrupt me, I can go on until six o'clock in the morning. I know that many hon. Members opposite do not like the truth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now made friends of those who formerly attacked him in the days when he was making those speeches which are now looked upon as the standard speeches on the taxation of land values. In those days he was not loved by Members on the other side. In those days they shouted "Divide!" and tried to howl him down when he was speaking about the landlords. In those days some of the Members now sitting side by side with him hated him so much that they threw Order books at his head in this House, and now they embrace him and offer him the loving cup. Now they are all brothers, united to fight the workers of this country. Let me tell hon. Members opposite that we accept their challenge. I say to them this: We can meet you in a General Election now or at any time you care to select. If you imagine that this Budget is such a wonderful Budget, that it is so acceptable to the people, go to the country on it. I am confident that if an election were to take place hon. Members on the other side would not find this House of Commons the social centre that so many of them believe it to be, but would find it turned into a working chamber whose task would be the framing of legislation that would bring happiness to the great majority of the people.

Question put, "That the word 'now ' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 92.

Division No. 209.]
AYES.
 [11.27 p.m.


Acland-Troyte Lieut.-Colonel
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander
F. W. Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Albery, Irving James
Astor, Viscountess
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Atholl, Duchess of
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Beilairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Bennett, A. J.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, F. B.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank


Berry, Sir George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Bethell, A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Betterton, Henry B.
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gee, Captain R.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moles, Thomas


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Blundell, F. N.
Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Grace, John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grant, J. A.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Brass, Captain W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gretton, Colonel John
Murchison, C. K.


Briggs, J. Harold
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Briscoe, Richard George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brittain, Sir Harry
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Neville, R. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newton, Sir O. G. C. (Cambridge)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hanbury, C.
Nuttall, Ellis


Bullock, Captain M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Harland, A.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pennefather, Sir John


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Frederick George


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Campbell, E. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Philipson, Mabel


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Pielou, D. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Preston, William


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Human, C. W. J.
Radford, E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ramsden, E.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rawllnson. Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Clarry, Reginald George
Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Remer, J. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Huntingfield, Lord
Ropner, Major L.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rye, F. G.


Cooper, A. Duff
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Salmon, Major I.


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Couper, J. B.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Jacob, A. E.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sandon, Lord


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Savery, S. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Elveden, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macintyre, I.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacMillan, Captain H.
Storry Deans, R.


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ford, P. J.
Malone, Major P. B.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Meller, R. J.
Templeton, W. P.




Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon. S.)
White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dalrymple
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wragg, Herbert


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wise, Sir Fredric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wolmer, Viscount
Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Briant, Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirk wood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.



Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Charles


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Edwards.


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Colchester Gas Company, which was presented on the 16th June and published, be approved."—[Sir Burton Chadwick.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.